May 5, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Method to get the month name of a given date
May 5, 2011 at 10:18 pm
I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of wrapping a perfectly useable & readable function with another one. Just adds unnecessary bloat and confusion.
May 5, 2011 at 10:32 pm
+1
antony-688446 (5/5/2011)
I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of wrapping a perfectly useable & readable function with another one. Just adds unnecessary bloat and confusion.
May 6, 2011 at 12:15 am
antony-688446 (5/5/2011)
I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of wrapping a perfectly useable & readable function with another one. Just adds unnecessary bloat and confusion.
As i stands i would say its totally useless.
However. There could be an advantage in case of changed biz rules. Say you would no longer want the whole name back but just an abbrivation. Would be easier in that case to just change this function... however unless your pretty sure there is a HUGE risk off this happening there is no reason for using a custom function.
/T
May 6, 2011 at 6:44 am
I was interested in this article because I thought I would write a reply like "Hey didn't you know SQL already has a function for that?"
Apparently the author already knows this. :crazy: I add my vote to the "this implementation has little use" crowd.
May 6, 2011 at 6:55 am
tommyh (5/6/2011)
antony-688446 (5/5/2011)
I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of wrapping a perfectly useable & readable function with another one. Just adds unnecessary bloat and confusion.As i stands i would say its totally useless.
However. There could be an advantage in case of changed biz rules. Say you would no longer want the whole name back but just an abbrivation. Would be easier in that case to just change this function... however unless your pretty sure there is a HUGE risk off this happening there is no reason for using a custom function.
/T
Same here. I've heard about environemenets withs 1000s of reports. If some goof decides to change all those reports, I'd much rather change 1 function than 500 reports.
May 6, 2011 at 7:02 am
Could yet at least add a check for a NULL date or a parameter that lets you optionally return just the first three char's? At least then the function adds value to the existing function.
[font="Verdana"]Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.[/font]
Connect to me on LinkedIn
May 6, 2011 at 9:22 am
Is this a joke??? I am a little bit socially challenged and I don't always correctly identify humor.
May 6, 2011 at 9:30 am
tbailey 19088 (5/6/2011)
Is this a joke??? I am a little bit socially challenged and I don't always correctly identify humor.
I love this reply!! This is by far the best response!!
May 8, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Robert Davis (5/6/2011)
tbailey 19088 (5/6/2011)
Is this a joke??? I am a little bit socially challenged and I don't always correctly identify humor.I love this reply!! This is by far the best response!!
Lol!
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply