Re: Table Names: Singular or Plural?

"DJS" <a_at_a.com> wrote in message news:tJpr8.233297$q2.21872_at_sccrnsc01...
> Thank you both. I actually find both of your arguments compelling - and
> when there are good arguments on both sides of an issue, I tend to think
> that the isssue might simply be religious. Am I right? Is this just
> religious?
>
>
> Let me just add my final two cents...
>
> ($.01) As I said in my first post, it massively complicates my life to
> transform each entity name to a plural when
> transforming my logical model to a physical.
>
> ($.02) --CELKO--, you're absolutely right that plural names are much more
> intuitive when perceiving tables as a SQL programmer would. But, if
you're
> perceiving the tables as a data modeler would, it's my belief that plural
> names are terribly counterintuitive. More specifically, there are two
types
> of developers: those who are more visual than textual, and those who are
> more textual than visual. For the first group - those of us who conceive
of
> our databases and object models *visually* as boxes in our heads connected
> with little lines and arrows - plural names are mighty confusing. For the
> second group - those who prefer to analyze SQL scripts and source
modules -
> singular names probably seem just as confusing.
>
> After thinking about it, I now beleive it's a matter of perspective. Any
> thoughts?
>
> --Dave
>

It is like puting on your trousers, should it be left leg first then right, or right leg first then left? It doesn't matter in the slightest as long as you do what you are comfortable with and don't try both at once! In this case consistency is more important than the choice itself.

David Received on Wed Apr 10 2002 - 05:39:36 CEST