Re: Hierarchical Relationship

>> Same here, although I do wish he's get back to us about why Access
is such a "terrible product"... <<

The datatypes are wrong, the square brackets and quote marks are wrong, the BETWEEN predicate does not work, the subquery predicates are wrong, the DISTINCTROW is an abomination, the optimizer is pathetic, it is missing so much of SQL-92 that other desktops like SQL Anywhere have, etc. Someone had a list of about 150 differences in ACCESS versus SQL- 92; maybe ic an fidn it again and post it.

While not part of the language, ACCESS programmers have a hell of a time learning to think in sets instead of procedures. I spend so much time trying to UN-learn them in classes. For example, ACCESS programmers write VB code instead of thinking about a pure SQL answer to a problem. They put those stupid little prefixes on names (i.e. tblPersonnel, intQuantity, etc.) which are at best redundant because SQL knows what the schema objects are from syntax. That is why you can legally give a column and a table the same name (don't do that!).

In the 1950's FORTRAN needed to be told the identifers that began with I thru N were integers and the rest were reals. In tyhe 1960's, BASIC needed to see a dollar sign to tell strings from reals (i.e. X and X$). Compilers were both weak and close to the machinery in those days. What this practice says about the mind set is that the programmer needs to see the physical storage at all time. Without a strong abstract reasoning ability learning advanced SQL is almost impossible.

--CELKO-- Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Fri Mar 17 2000 - 00:00:00 CET