A Microsoft Office (Excel, Word) forum. OfficeFrustration

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.

Go Back   Home » OfficeFrustration forum » Microsoft Access » Database Design
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  

Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 12th, 2006, 10:12 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Robert Morley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default 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  
Old July 12th, 2006, 10:18 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Robert Morley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default 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  
Old July 12th, 2006, 10:38 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
mnature
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default 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  
Old July 12th, 2006, 11:40 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Robert Morley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default 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  
Old July 13th, 2006, 10:52 AM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Jamie Collins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,705
Default 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  
Old July 13th, 2006, 11:07 AM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Jamie Collins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,705
Default 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  
Old July 13th, 2006, 04:06 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Sylvain Lafontaine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 528
Default 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  
Old July 13th, 2006, 05:33 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Robert Morley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default 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  
Old July 13th, 2006, 05:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
BruceM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default 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  
Old July 13th, 2006, 07:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Tim Ferguson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:31 AM
Requery Combobox MJ Running & Setting Up Queries 7 May 25th, 2004 11:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 OfficeFrustration.
The comments are property of their posters.