February 1, 2011 at 2:57 pm
I was a foxpro programmer for a long time. I think It was a good RDBMS. But it did have its issues. At a FoxPro conference I attended once for example, a speaker claimed that you could change a bit in a table and FoxPro would not complain about it, which is not ideal. But it was designed to function rather than break (and it's guesses were usually right was my impression).
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking
February 2, 2011 at 4:46 am
CELKO (2/1/2011)
ACCESS had two camps -- the engine and the front end -- that did not like each other. The company policy was that if the front end could not come up with a neat GUI or display, the back end had to cripple the feature. That is why there was no UNION in version 1.0.
Wow. Sounds like the stories I heard about Apple back in the day, with different computer teams competing against each other instead of the external competition.
February 2, 2011 at 5:34 am
Brandie Tarvin (2/2/2011)
CELKO (2/1/2011)
ACCESS had two camps -- the engine and the front end -- that did not like each other. The company policy was that if the front end could not come up with a neat GUI or display, the back end had to cripple the feature. That is why there was no UNION in version 1.0.Wow. Sounds like the stories I heard about Apple back in the day, with different computer teams competing against each other instead of the external competition.
It happens in all large enough companies, I think. Certainly it went on in ICL. Of course people denied that that was what was going on, but it was absolutely clear to anyone watching it except, for reasons unknown, the managers who should have prevented it. It didn't happen in Linkguard - the company was too small and we didn't have enough developers for two factions to form.
Tom
February 3, 2011 at 12:23 am
CELKO (1/31/2011)
I do believe in portable SQL; I earn a living from it . Most ports are from release(n) to release(n+1) of the same SQL product.
That, good sir, has been my point all along. Most ports ARE, in fact, "from release(n) to release(n+1) of the same SQL product" and will easily withstand the use of the wonderful and very high powered extensions that every dialect of SQL has.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 3, 2011 at 12:35 am
Brandie Tarvin (2/1/2011)
GSquared (2/1/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (2/1/2011)
Brandie Tarvin (2/1/2011)
CELKO (1/31/2011)
Successful projects start on lesser SQLs (even ACCESS ) then have to move to DB2, Oracle, Teradata or whatever.Including Access? What other lesser SQLs are there? I'm assuming you mean non-robust solutions, so I'm truly curious as Access (and maybe Lotus) is the only one I know for sure.
Would FoxPro count?
Only if you also count CSV files as "databases".
Don't get me started. I know Business Users who swear Excel is a database. <*headdesk*>
BWAA-HAA!!! IMHO, SQL Server (and other advertised RDBMS's) isn't much more than a very sophisticated and, perhaps, unnecessarily complicated file handler. Why is it so unreasonable for Business Users to think of Excel (or any other spreadsheet) as a "database" and why is it so unreasonable for us to not let them think that?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 3, 2011 at 6:32 am
If a "database" is a means of storing data in a retrievable, orderly manner, then Excel can be a database. So can text files. Deep under the hood, it's all rows and columns in either format, unless it's "multi-dimensional arrays" as in Cache, or object properties (OODBs), XML, et al.
So, yeah, let them use Excel as a database, so long as they understand the issues with concurrency, contention, integrity, reliability, recoverability, et al.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
February 3, 2011 at 6:42 am
GSquared (2/3/2011)
So, yeah, let them use Excel as a database, so long as they understand the issues with concurrency, contention, integrity, reliability, recoverability, et al.
I have highlighted the three relevant words which users seem to forget when treating Excel as a DB. The biggest issue, though, is data accuracy, which doesn't exist because people forget how easy it is to inadvertently delete a cell or type over the wrong cell.
Then they wonder why it can't be fixed by IT. After all, we can fix everything else.
February 3, 2011 at 7:44 am
Brandie Tarvin (2/3/2011)
GSquared (2/3/2011)
So, yeah, let them use Excel as a database, so long as they understand the issues with concurrency, contention, integrity, reliability, recoverability, et al.I have highlighted the three relevant words which users seem to forget when treating Excel as a DB. The biggest issue, though, is data accuracy, which doesn't exist because people forget how easy it is to inadvertently delete a cell or type over the wrong cell.
Then they wonder why it can't be fixed by IT. After all, we can fix everything else.
I would have highlighted concurrency too - I don't know any useful means for dozens of people to have simultaneous write access to an excel file.
Tom
Viewing 8 posts - 31 through 37 (of 37 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply