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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
I still don't buy that this is either product-specific or amateur-specific.
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. Personally, I don't see the point of starting ALL objects in a category with the same letters; that's generally redundant (though occasionally useful when you're trying to distinguish between views and tables, etc.). My general preference is to base it around the function of the object. "acct" for account-related tables, "resp" for respondent-related tables, "list" for simple lookup-type tables, etc. Only for objects that don't have a significant inter-relationship with the rest of the database (i.e., localization tables, user preferences, etc.) do I use the generic "tbl", "frm", or whatever. And while "tbl" itself may have first appeared in a Smart Access article in 1993, as I said, Hungarian notation itself pre-dates that. As I said, Simonyi Károly (aka Charles Simonyi) did indeed work at Microsoft, but he started Hungarian Notation back when he was working for Xerox. It's hardly a surprise that it later appeared in a Microsoft product that he worked on. Hell, ignore Hungarian notation for a moment, how long ago did people start using "i" for integer? "For i = " was one of the first constructs I learned almost 30 years ago. Rob "Craig Alexander Morrison" wrote in message ... Oh and just for the record, Hungarian Notation became popular with languages like VB/VBA, but actually pre-dates it. The inventor, Simonyi Károly, was working for Xerox at the time and only much later did he move to Microsoft. For the record "tbl" and other such fripperies first appeared in a 1993 Smart Access article and has subsequently appeared in the ADH books. I don't mind one using tags in code but not for database objects. Charles Simonyi actually worked on Access 1; I am not sure what he thinks of the Lesynski/Reddick extensions. It is a good sign of an amateur with limited experience of other products. Some amateurs are very good programmers though. Nearly all formally trained Relational (or SQL) Database designers would find this "tbl" tag laughable. -- Slainte Craig Alexander Morrison Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited "Robert Morley" wrote in message ... Like I said, different ways of thinking. I look at most of your points and disagree with them either in part or in whole, but frankly, this isn't the place to get into this kind of discussion. The original post has been answered with two different solutions, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. I just bitched someone else out in another NG for exactly this kind of "mine is bigger than yours" discussion that serves no purpose but to bicker pointlessly. Everybody's got their favourite apps and the apps they think are toys, we simply disagree on which ones are which. Rob "Tim Ferguson" wrote in message ... "Robert Morley" wrote in : Obviously someone thought so, or they never would've designed combo box lookups to work in tables. There are several things in Access that relegate it into the "toy" platform in the eyes of other database developers on "real" systems. The quaint but misguided fashion for putting "tbl" in front of object names is one; the presence of the "look up field" is another. I regret this because when you get up close, Jet is a pretty fine database engine and Access is a flexible and usable rapid development platform, but it will continue to get a rotten press as long as it's aimed at the Janet and John level of user. The type of users, in effect, that get drowned in any case as soon as they step off the dumb-spreadsheet kind of appliction. FWIW, it seems that the Access-as-toy party has won the debate because Jet development is being taken over by the Access UI team. I think it's time to be off to MySQL before they put in the paper clip telling you not to put financial data into an integer field. What it really comes down to is that each of us has our own opinions and ways of doing things. Don't get upset with someone just because they think and work differently than you do. I get upset because of two things. Firstly, posts like yours may be seen by people who know about databases but not much about Access, who will merely have their suspicions confirmed that access is a plaything for people who don't know their way round Codd or Date. The second reason is that they may be seen by people who don't know much about Access or databases, and who will then think this is a good and reasonable way to use it; and whose horizons will forever be shortened. All the best Tim F |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
If the debates are pointless, why are you adding to them? Name things as
you choose. For myself it would be confusing if account-related tables, queries, forms, and reports all start with the same prefix, but that's just my preference. "Robert Morley" wrote in message ... I still don't buy that this is either product-specific or amateur-specific. 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. Personally, I don't see the point of starting ALL objects in a category with the same letters; that's generally redundant (though occasionally useful when you're trying to distinguish between views and tables, etc.). My general preference is to base it around the function of the object. "acct" for account-related tables, "resp" for respondent-related tables, "list" for simple lookup-type tables, etc. Only for objects that don't have a significant inter-relationship with the rest of the database (i.e., localization tables, user preferences, etc.) do I use the generic "tbl", "frm", or whatever. And while "tbl" itself may have first appeared in a Smart Access article in 1993, as I said, Hungarian notation itself pre-dates that. As I said, Simonyi Károly (aka Charles Simonyi) did indeed work at Microsoft, but he started Hungarian Notation back when he was working for Xerox. It's hardly a surprise that it later appeared in a Microsoft product that he worked on. Hell, ignore Hungarian notation for a moment, how long ago did people start using "i" for integer? "For i = " was one of the first constructs I learned almost 30 years ago. Rob "Craig Alexander Morrison" wrote in message ... Oh and just for the record, Hungarian Notation became popular with languages like VB/VBA, but actually pre-dates it. The inventor, Simonyi Károly, was working for Xerox at the time and only much later did he move to Microsoft. For the record "tbl" and other such fripperies first appeared in a 1993 Smart Access article and has subsequently appeared in the ADH books. I don't mind one using tags in code but not for database objects. Charles Simonyi actually worked on Access 1; I am not sure what he thinks of the Lesynski/Reddick extensions. It is a good sign of an amateur with limited experience of other products. Some amateurs are very good programmers though. Nearly all formally trained Relational (or SQL) Database designers would find this "tbl" tag laughable. -- Slainte Craig Alexander Morrison Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited "Robert Morley" wrote in message ... Like I said, different ways of thinking. I look at most of your points and disagree with them either in part or in whole, but frankly, this isn't the place to get into this kind of discussion. The original post has been answered with two different solutions, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. I just bitched someone else out in another NG for exactly this kind of "mine is bigger than yours" discussion that serves no purpose but to bicker pointlessly. Everybody's got their favourite apps and the apps they think are toys, we simply disagree on which ones are which. Rob "Tim Ferguson" wrote in message ... "Robert Morley" wrote in : Obviously someone thought so, or they never would've designed combo box lookups to work in tables. There are several things in Access that relegate it into the "toy" platform in the eyes of other database developers on "real" systems. The quaint but misguided fashion for putting "tbl" in front of object names is one; the presence of the "look up field" is another. I regret this because when you get up close, Jet is a pretty fine database engine and Access is a flexible and usable rapid development platform, but it will continue to get a rotten press as long as it's aimed at the Janet and John level of user. The type of users, in effect, that get drowned in any case as soon as they step off the dumb-spreadsheet kind of appliction. FWIW, it seems that the Access-as-toy party has won the debate because Jet development is being taken over by the Access UI team. I think it's time to be off to MySQL before they put in the paper clip telling you not to put financial data into an integer field. What it really comes down to is that each of us has our own opinions and ways of doing things. Don't get upset with someone just because they think and work differently than you do. I get upset because of two things. Firstly, posts like yours may be seen by people who know about databases but not much about Access, who will merely have their suspicions confirmed that access is a plaything for people who don't know their way round Codd or Date. The second reason is that they may be seen by people who don't know much about Access or databases, and who will then think this is a good and reasonable way to use it; and whose horizons will forever be shortened. All the best Tim F |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
.....spoke too soon....
See original thread. (vbg) -- Slainte Craig Alexander Morrison Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited "BruceM" wrote in message ... If the debates are pointless, why are you adding to them? Name things as you choose. For myself it would be confusing if account-related tables, queries, forms, and reports all start with the same prefix, but that's just my preference. "Robert Morley" wrote in message ... I still don't buy that this is either product-specific or amateur-specific. 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. Personally, I don't see the point of starting ALL objects in a category with the same letters; that's generally redundant (though occasionally useful when you're trying to distinguish between views and tables, etc.). My general preference is to base it around the function of the object. "acct" for account-related tables, "resp" for respondent-related tables, "list" for simple lookup-type tables, etc. Only for objects that don't have a significant inter-relationship with the rest of the database (i.e., localization tables, user preferences, etc.) do I use the generic "tbl", "frm", or whatever. And while "tbl" itself may have first appeared in a Smart Access article in 1993, as I said, Hungarian notation itself pre-dates that. As I said, Simonyi Károly (aka Charles Simonyi) did indeed work at Microsoft, but he started Hungarian Notation back when he was working for Xerox. It's hardly a surprise that it later appeared in a Microsoft product that he worked on. Hell, ignore Hungarian notation for a moment, how long ago did people start using "i" for integer? "For i = " was one of the first constructs I learned almost 30 years ago. Rob "Craig Alexander Morrison" wrote in message ... Oh and just for the record, Hungarian Notation became popular with languages like VB/VBA, but actually pre-dates it. The inventor, Simonyi Károly, was working for Xerox at the time and only much later did he move to Microsoft. For the record "tbl" and other such fripperies first appeared in a 1993 Smart Access article and has subsequently appeared in the ADH books. I don't mind one using tags in code but not for database objects. Charles Simonyi actually worked on Access 1; I am not sure what he thinks of the Lesynski/Reddick extensions. It is a good sign of an amateur with limited experience of other products. Some amateurs are very good programmers though. Nearly all formally trained Relational (or SQL) Database designers would find this "tbl" tag laughable. -- Slainte Craig Alexander Morrison Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited "Robert Morley" wrote in message ... Like I said, different ways of thinking. I look at most of your points and disagree with them either in part or in whole, but frankly, this isn't the place to get into this kind of discussion. The original post has been answered with two different solutions, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. I just bitched someone else out in another NG for exactly this kind of "mine is bigger than yours" discussion that serves no purpose but to bicker pointlessly. Everybody's got their favourite apps and the apps they think are toys, we simply disagree on which ones are which. Rob "Tim Ferguson" wrote in message ... "Robert Morley" wrote in : Obviously someone thought so, or they never would've designed combo box lookups to work in tables. There are several things in Access that relegate it into the "toy" platform in the eyes of other database developers on "real" systems. The quaint but misguided fashion for putting "tbl" in front of object names is one; the presence of the "look up field" is another. I regret this because when you get up close, Jet is a pretty fine database engine and Access is a flexible and usable rapid development platform, but it will continue to get a rotten press as long as it's aimed at the Janet and John level of user. The type of users, in effect, that get drowned in any case as soon as they step off the dumb-spreadsheet kind of appliction. FWIW, it seems that the Access-as-toy party has won the debate because Jet development is being taken over by the Access UI team. I think it's time to be off to MySQL before they put in the paper clip telling you not to put financial data into an integer field. What it really comes down to is that each of us has our own opinions and ways of doing things. Don't get upset with someone just because they think and work differently than you do. I get upset because of two things. Firstly, posts like yours may be seen by people who know about databases but not much about Access, who will merely have their suspicions confirmed that access is a plaything for people who don't know their way round Codd or Date. The second reason is that they may be seen by people who don't know much about Access or databases, and who will then think this is a good and reasonable way to use it; and whose horizons will forever be shortened. All the best Tim F |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
Because my professional pride hates being insulted by being called an
amateur even more than I hate being drawn into pointless debates. Rob "BruceM" wrote in message ... If the debates are pointless, why are you adding to them? Name things as you choose. For myself it would be confusing if account-related tables, queries, forms, and reports all start with the same prefix, but that's just my preference. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
Like everything else in the world, to much is like not enough. When writing
some piece of code, you must write it in a way that will convey the maximum quantity of useful information to the programmer but without cluttering the whole thing, because at this point the process will become counter-productive: instead of diminishing the possibility for the programmer of writing a bug, it will increase it. « how long ago did people start using "i" for integer? "For i = " was one of the first constructs I learned almost 30 years ago. » For those interested, this old notation came from the first commercial version of Fortran and had then a functional purpose: all variables beginning with one of the letters i, j, k, l, m and n (taken from the enumeration i .. n corresponding to the first two letters of the word INteger) were automatically declared to be of type integer and all others were dimensionned as float by default. In fact, in Fortran 4, I'm not even sure if you could dimension a variable beginning with one of the letters i .. n to *not* be an integer. (Since my old manual of Fortran 4 is gone since a very long time, I can't no longer verify this point.) In Fortran 5, you can easily declare one of these variables to not be an integer but still, if you don't say otherwise, they will be of type integer by default. -- Sylvain Lafontaine, ing. MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF "Robert Morley" wrote in message ... I still don't buy that this is either product-specific or amateur-specific. 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. Personally, I don't see the point of starting ALL objects in a category with the same letters; that's generally redundant (though occasionally useful when you're trying to distinguish between views and tables, etc.). My general preference is to base it around the function of the object. "acct" for account-related tables, "resp" for respondent-related tables, "list" for simple lookup-type tables, etc. Only for objects that don't have a significant inter-relationship with the rest of the database (i.e., localization tables, user preferences, etc.) do I use the generic "tbl", "frm", or whatever. And while "tbl" itself may have first appeared in a Smart Access article in 1993, as I said, Hungarian notation itself pre-dates that. As I said, Simonyi Károly (aka Charles Simonyi) did indeed work at Microsoft, but he started Hungarian Notation back when he was working for Xerox. It's hardly a surprise that it later appeared in a Microsoft product that he worked on. Hell, ignore Hungarian notation for a moment, how long ago did people start using "i" for integer? "For i = " was one of the first constructs I learned almost 30 years ago. Rob "Craig Alexander Morrison" wrote in message ... Oh and just for the record, Hungarian Notation became popular with languages like VB/VBA, but actually pre-dates it. The inventor, Simonyi Károly, was working for Xerox at the time and only much later did he move to Microsoft. For the record "tbl" and other such fripperies first appeared in a 1993 Smart Access article and has subsequently appeared in the ADH books. I don't mind one using tags in code but not for database objects. Charles Simonyi actually worked on Access 1; I am not sure what he thinks of the Lesynski/Reddick extensions. It is a good sign of an amateur with limited experience of other products. Some amateurs are very good programmers though. Nearly all formally trained Relational (or SQL) Database designers would find this "tbl" tag laughable. -- Slainte Craig Alexander Morrison Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited "Robert Morley" wrote in message ... Like I said, different ways of thinking. I look at most of your points and disagree with them either in part or in whole, but frankly, this isn't the place to get into this kind of discussion. The original post has been answered with two different solutions, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. I just bitched someone else out in another NG for exactly this kind of "mine is bigger than yours" discussion that serves no purpose but to bicker pointlessly. Everybody's got their favourite apps and the apps they think are toys, we simply disagree on which ones are which. Rob "Tim Ferguson" wrote in message ... "Robert Morley" wrote in : Obviously someone thought so, or they never would've designed combo box lookups to work in tables. There are several things in Access that relegate it into the "toy" platform in the eyes of other database developers on "real" systems. The quaint but misguided fashion for putting "tbl" in front of object names is one; the presence of the "look up field" is another. I regret this because when you get up close, Jet is a pretty fine database engine and Access is a flexible and usable rapid development platform, but it will continue to get a rotten press as long as it's aimed at the Janet and John level of user. The type of users, in effect, that get drowned in any case as soon as they step off the dumb-spreadsheet kind of appliction. FWIW, it seems that the Access-as-toy party has won the debate because Jet development is being taken over by the Access UI team. I think it's time to be off to MySQL before they put in the paper clip telling you not to put financial data into an integer field. What it really comes down to is that each of us has our own opinions and ways of doing things. Don't get upset with someone just because they think and work differently than you do. I get upset because of two things. Firstly, posts like yours may be seen by people who know about databases but not much about Access, who will merely have their suspicions confirmed that access is a plaything for people who don't know their way round Codd or Date. The second reason is that they may be seen by people who don't know much about Access or databases, and who will then think this is a good and reasonable way to use it; and whose horizons will forever be shortened. All the best Tim F |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
Is that where we get it from? I never knew! Apparently you've been
programming even longer than I have! Rob "Sylvain Lafontaine" sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote in message ... « how long ago did people start using "i" for integer? "For i = " was one of the first constructs I learned almost 30 years ago. » For those interested, this old notation came from the first commercial version of Fortran and had then a functional purpose: all variables beginning with one of the letters i, j, k, l, m and n (taken from the enumeration i .. n corresponding to the first two letters of the word INteger) were automatically declared to be of type integer and all others were dimensionned as float by default. In fact, in Fortran 4, I'm not even sure if you could dimension a variable beginning with one of the letters i .. n to *not* be an integer. (Since my old manual of Fortran 4 is gone since a very long time, I can't no longer verify this point.) In Fortran 5, you can easily declare one of these variables to not be an integer but still, if you don't say otherwise, they will be of type integer by default. -- Sylvain Lafontaine, ing. MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
Like everything else in the world, to much is like not enough. When
writing some piece of code, you must write it in a way that will convey the maximum quantity of useful information to the programmer but without cluttering the whole thing, because at this point the process will become counter-productive: instead of diminishing the possibility for the programmer of writing a bug, it will increase it. Actually, I found a hilarious web page about that by yet another Canadian: http://mindprod.com/jgloss/unmainnaming.html |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
I looked through the other thread. I have to say I'm puzzled that a naming
convention would sort of cheapen the program in the view of some. I'm not clear if those who think poorly of using prefixes for objects would prefer no naming convention at all, or what exactly, but in any case it seems in rather a different category than lookup fields in tables. When I first started learning about Access I was taught to put prefixes onto fields (txt for a Text field, dat for Date/Time, and like that), but I soon discovered that I much prefer to use prefixes for controls in particular. I also use them prefixes objects, so I therefore know that if it does not have a prefix it is a field. Works for me, even if it offends some. Best regards. "Robert Morley" wrote in message ... Because my professional pride hates being insulted by being called an amateur even more than I hate being drawn into pointless debates. Rob "BruceM" wrote in message ... If the debates are pointless, why are you adding to them? Name things as you choose. For myself it would be confusing if account-related tables, queries, forms, and reports all start with the same prefix, but that's just my preference. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)
"Robert Morley" wrote in
: And while "tbl" itself may have first appeared in a Smart Access article in 1993, as I said, Hungarian notation itself pre-dates that. As I said, Simonyi K*roly (aka Charles Simonyi) did indeed work at Microsoft, but he started Hungarian Notation back when he was working for Xerox. 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (
"BruceM" wrote:
If the debates are pointless, why are you adding to them? Arguing with programmers is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a few hours, you realize that the pig likes it. |
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 |