BruceM wrote:
I learned about a naming
convention that makes sense, so I started using it, and found it to be
helpful.

Did you browse the whole 'naming conventions' aisle before making your
choice?

It's interesting how much of the discussion is about how using one system or
another will appear in the eyes of somebody else.
Did you choose the
naming convention you use because you "wannabe" like somebody else?

Of course. When I started dabbling in WordBasic, I used logical terms
for variable names; I was working in the office of the board of
directors and wore a blazer, slacks and smart shiny shoes to the
office.

I wanted to move into VBA software development so, to be taken
seriously by what I hoped would be my peers, I adopted the naming
convention lng- for Long Integer, str- for String, dtm- for Date, etc.
These prefixes did not add value for me personally: the variable name
told me how I was using it and hence conveyed the data type, the prefix
seemed to be redundant and jar.

Luckily in my SQL career I took the 'standard SQL' path from day one
and never got into the whole 'tbl', 'fields' and other Access
conventions. When I first started using .NET I was very relieved that
the convention has moved away from data type prefixes to logical
variable names; I still use the prefixes in VBA, though sometimes I
can't be bothered and stick with the .NET convention. I was amused the
other day to see an MVP using camelCase for their Access column -
sorry, field - names g.

And, yes, I use the standard SQL terms column (in place of 'field'),
VIEW (in place of 'Query'), 'DECIMAL' (in place of 'Currency' g), a
relational/industry standard key (in place of 'autonumber' vbg) to
encourage others to look outside of the Access ghetto in the hope they
may benefit as I have.

Oh and today I'm wearing a t-shirt and jeans (because sometimes you
need to fit in) with walking boots (because sometimes you need to do
what makes practical sense).

Jamie.

--