If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
Good article, though I was already aware of the differentiation between
Systems & Apps Hungarian (though I can never remember their formal titles until I re-read articles such as that one...the names just never made sense to me). Going back to the "tbl" concept, though, at some point in this long chain of messages over multiple threads, I seem to remember stating that I only use "tbl" for generic tables that have no other logical grouping within my database (or code, or whatever it is I'm looking at), and that I tend to group and name tables by logical function ("acct", "resp", etc.) otherwise...that it seemed a little redundant to name everything of a certain object type or data type with the same prefix. Isn't that basically what the article is advocating? I *do* consider Systems Hungarian to be a perfectly valid alternative for those that find it's useful to them, though for what I do, I find it a little limited in its own right. My personal preference is to use a hybrid of systems & apps when coding, where the first lower-case prefix is descriptive of the data type (with reasonable exceptions...I don't know ANYBODY who uses something like lngHWnd), and the first upper-case prefix is descriptive of the logical grouping, (i.e. strAcctFilename, which is very obviously a string relating to an account, and is a file name). But there are those who prefer Systems Hungarian, and as long as they keep it localized to their own code/database/whatever and don't try to impose it on mine, that's fine. (As you can imagine, I was NOT best pleased with the Web developer who went and copied all my stored procedures that started with "web" to indicate they were used on the Web to a simple "usp" prefix. Who on earth ever gave System Administrator privileges to a *student* web developer?!?) Anyway, all things considered, I think we mostly just misunderstood each other from the start of this conversation. You know what the say about assumptions! Rob "Tim Ferguson" wrote in message ... For a good description of the history of "systems Hungarian" and its misapplication see Joel on Softwa http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html Tim F |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (
Arguing with programmers is like wrestling with a pig in the mud.
After a few hours, you realize that the pig likes it. Dare I ask how you came to this conclusion (about the pigs, that is, not the programmers)? grin Rob |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (
"Robert Morley" wrote:
Arguing with programmers is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a few hours, you realize that the pig likes it. Dare I ask how you came to this conclusion (about the pigs, that is, not the programmers)? grin Rob After arguing with programmers, the pig was a nice break . . . |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (
Hahaha...couldn't agree with you more!
Rob "mnature" wrote in message ... "Robert Morley" wrote: Arguing with programmers is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a few hours, you realize that the pig likes it. Dare I ask how you came to this conclusion (about the pigs, that is, not the programmers)? grin Rob After arguing with programmers, the pig was a nice break . . . |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
Robert Morley wrote: I've seen countless numbers of experienced, formally trained (and who learned it on their own) database programmers on every platform I've ever used who use "tbl" for tables, "vw" for views, "usp" for user stored procedures, not to mention "frm" for forms, "rpt" for reports, etc., ad nauseum. I think the important word here is 'convention'. It is an Access convention to prefix tables with 'tbl'. Wannabe Access MVPs see established Access MVPs using the prefix so they imitate them; in turn Access MVPs use the prefix because it's what their audience expects i.e. to do Access things in an Access way. Bottom line: use the 'tlb' prefix if you want to appear to be a true blue Access user. How that affects your reputation as an amateur or otherwise will largely be determined by where you are posting your reply e.g. contrast the Microsoft.Public.Access.GettingStarted group with comp.databases.theory. My advice: if you want to appear as a 'serious' SQL database type person, take a look at what people do outside of the Access ghetto. You'll find the debate focuses on whether to pluralize table names (e.g. Customer or Customers) and that prefixes are not rarely used at all, other than as a hangover from a port from Access. Jamie. -- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
Robert Morley wrote: "tbl" for tables, "vw" for views Another thought. Could using prefixes encourage the wrong mental model? For example, using 'tbl' and 'vw' differentiates between a table and a view (or 'qry for Query, to use the Access conventions). The difference is physical whereas logically a view is a (virtual) table so why differentiate at all? If I say SELECT last_name FROM Customers, why would I care whether the table was virtual or otherwise? What value does the prefix add? Likewise the terms 'field' and 'record' which still prevail in the Access world, rather than the respective terms 'column' and 'row' preferred in the wider SQL world. Do these terms really encourage people to think in terms file systems and sequential processing rather than SQL databases and a set-based mental model? Jamie. -- |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
Many people here will post examples of code using prefixes such as tbl or vw
only because they are writing only a few lines of code instead of a full database and they need to make these very few lines to be a much clear as possible; with no other background. Myself, I often write here things MyTable or MyView; however, I will never use the names MyTable or MyView in one of MyDatabase. -- Sylvain Lafontaine, ing. MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF "Jamie Collins" wrote in message ups.com... Robert Morley wrote: I've seen countless numbers of experienced, formally trained (and who learned it on their own) database programmers on every platform I've ever used who use "tbl" for tables, "vw" for views, "usp" for user stored procedures, not to mention "frm" for forms, "rpt" for reports, etc., ad nauseum. I think the important word here is 'convention'. It is an Access convention to prefix tables with 'tbl'. Wannabe Access MVPs see established Access MVPs using the prefix so they imitate them; in turn Access MVPs use the prefix because it's what their audience expects i.e. to do Access things in an Access way. Bottom line: use the 'tlb' prefix if you want to appear to be a true blue Access user. How that affects your reputation as an amateur or otherwise will largely be determined by where you are posting your reply e.g. contrast the Microsoft.Public.Access.GettingStarted group with comp.databases.theory. My advice: if you want to appear as a 'serious' SQL database type person, take a look at what people do outside of the Access ghetto. You'll find the debate focuses on whether to pluralize table names (e.g. Customer or Customers) and that prefixes are not rarely used at all, other than as a hangover from a port from Access. Jamie. -- |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
Like I said, for myself, I don't generally stick to simply "tbl" or "vw" or
whatever unless there's no other logical prefix, but I can think of at least one argument in favour of doing it that way: when you're looking at someone else's code, you know EXACTLY where to go if you need to look at the design of the table, view, SP, or whatever else. The record/field vs. row/column discussion is something I've heard before, and I've always thought that calling them rows & columns to look more professional or well-educated was "bass-ackwards". To me, spreadsheets have rows & columns; to apply those terms to a table is to relegate it to the level of a spreadsheet (or at best, a pre-relational-database table). But hey, I'll be the first to admit that I started out in Access and expanded my expertise from there, so maybe my views are a little biased towards the historical Access ways of doing things. Rob "Jamie Collins" wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morley wrote: "tbl" for tables, "vw" for views Another thought. Could using prefixes encourage the wrong mental model? For example, using 'tbl' and 'vw' differentiates between a table and a view (or 'qry for Query, to use the Access conventions). The difference is physical whereas logically a view is a (virtual) table so why differentiate at all? If I say SELECT last_name FROM Customers, why would I care whether the table was virtual or otherwise? What value does the prefix add? Likewise the terms 'field' and 'record' which still prevail in the Access world, rather than the respective terms 'column' and 'row' preferred in the wider SQL world. Do these terms really encourage people to think in terms file systems and sequential processing rather than SQL databases and a set-based mental model? Jamie. -- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
It's interesting how much of the discussion is about how using one system or
another will appear in the eyes of somebody else. I learned about a naming convention that makes sense, so I started using it, and found it to be helpful. It had nothing to do with being a "wannabe". Did you choose the naming convention you use because you "wannabe" like somebody else? If not, why do you assume that somebody using another naming convention is driven by such a motivation? "Jamie Collins" wrote in message ups.com... Robert Morley wrote: I've seen countless numbers of experienced, formally trained (and who learned it on their own) database programmers on every platform I've ever used who use "tbl" for tables, "vw" for views, "usp" for user stored procedures, not to mention "frm" for forms, "rpt" for reports, etc., ad nauseum. I think the important word here is 'convention'. It is an Access convention to prefix tables with 'tbl'. Wannabe Access MVPs see established Access MVPs using the prefix so they imitate them; in turn Access MVPs use the prefix because it's what their audience expects i.e. to do Access things in an Access way. Bottom line: use the 'tlb' prefix if you want to appear to be a true blue Access user. How that affects your reputation as an amateur or otherwise will largely be determined by where you are posting your reply e.g. contrast the Microsoft.Public.Access.GettingStarted group with comp.databases.theory. My advice: if you want to appear as a 'serious' SQL database type person, take a look at what people do outside of the Access ghetto. You'll find the debate focuses on whether to pluralize table names (e.g. Customer or Customers) and that prefixes are not rarely used at all, other than as a hangover from a port from Access. Jamie. -- |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
"Robert Morley" wrote in
: Like I said, for myself, I don't generally stick to simply "tbl" or "vw" or whatever unless there's no other logical prefix, but I can think of at least one argument in favour of doing it that way: when you're looking at someone else's code, you know EXACTLY where to go if you need to look at the design of the table, view, SP, or whatever else. Unless what used to be a table is now a view, (or vice versa, though less likely). Access does not easily provide the tools to go hunting through every reference to "tblSomething" and change it to "vwSomething". Nor, for that matter, "txtDescriptionType" to "cboDescriptionType", but that is a different argument. But hey, I'll be the first to admit that I started out in Access and expanded my expertise from there, so maybe my views are a little biased towards the historical Access ways of doing things. To be fair, it was Microsoft itself that pushed Hungarian notation as its own house style. I don't believe that the company ever understood how good Access was and they don't seem to have cared either. As for the programming style, they have now reverted completely, and prefixes are AbsolutelyOut for anything based on the new versions of VisualStudio -- or should that be visualStudio? All the best Tim F |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Update combo box in subform (After Update event) | Karl | Using Forms | 10 | April 4th, 2006 07:45 PM |
Looking for a recent thread on multple combo boxes | potter | Using Forms | 7 | February 28th, 2006 03:31 AM |
Requery Combobox | MJ | Running & Setting Up Queries | 7 | May 25th, 2004 11:01 AM |