On Jan 29, 12:20 am, Bob Badour wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
JOG wrote in

m:

On Jan 27, 8:33 pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:

JOG wrote

ps.co m:

I certainly don't think developers should excuse sloppy RDBMS
design just because they are using access (and of course I'm
sure many of the professionals here wouldn't dream of doing so,
despite others laxness).

What *are* you talking about?

Any mistakes in schema design that you can make in Access, you
can make in any other RDBMS.

*Sigh*. Yes, but as bob has pointed out, you've misconstrued my
point. Because it is marketed at different business problems (ones
with few concurrent users, simple domains, comparatively smaller
schema), a lot of Access users can get away with mistakes that
someone using, say, Oracle 11g to keep track of millions of facts
would in the end get called up on. So that's nothing to do with
the technology, just the market, which makes your empassioned
defence of the super-duper jetomatic engine a bit misplaced.

I'm not defending Jet here. I'm pointing out a logical error in your
attributing to "Access" something that has nothing specifically to
do with Access.

You are an idiot. Jim didn't attribute anything to Access. In fact, he
said it would be wrong to let an ignoramus blame his ignorance on the tool.

I'll also ignore the diatribe that followed in light of your
misunderstanding. (And the fact that you share my mother's maiden
name, so may well be long distant family...).

I do not misunderstand.

Then I can only conclude you lack the capacity to comprehend the
relatively simple written english that appears above.

It is strange isn't it. People seem to make up what they /want/ you to
have said, and no matter how clearly you state things, they will
superimpose their imaginary version over the top. Its bizarre, but you
see it so much.


[irrelevancies snipped]