ADO or DAO? Which one more readable?

#21

On Jul 17, 7:11*am, "Access Developer" <accde... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

I've done work on only one ADP (which, of course, required ADO), did not
find the much-touted "simpler object model" to be helpful, because <in Gomer
Pyle accent, "Sur-prize, sur-prize, sur-prize!> you have to provide all the
same information, only in slightly different form. *I've done apps ranging
from individual apps to LAN/WAN apps for a Fortune 100 company, and never
had a _need_ that DAO and ODBC did not answer, from 1993 until now.

I don't doubt that if I'd wasted (and I use the word advisedly) my time
delving deep into ADO, I might have found a few (from my observations, very
few) things that would be either simpler or possible in ADO as opposed to
DAO. I do very strongly doubt that the ROI on the time I spent delving deep
into ADO would have been positive.

--
Larry Linson, Microsoft Office Access MVP
Co-author: "Microsoft Access Small Business Solutions", published by Wiley
Access newsgroup support is alive and well in USENET
comp.databases.ms-access

"David W. Fenton" <XXXuse... (AT) dfenton (DOT) com.invalid> wrote in messagenews:Xns9DB5C55035211f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2 (AT) 74 (DOT) 209.136.91...

Banana <Ban... (AT) Republic (DOT) com> wrote in
news:4C3E35C1.3010809 (AT) Republic (DOT) com:

On 7/14/10 11:23 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
So, use DAO for any MDB/ACCDB back end, or any back end accessed
through ODBC.

*From where I sit, this basically means that you never use
*anything
but DAO as your default database interface, since there's no
reason why you'd be using anything other than MDB/ACCDB/ODBC.

I'm reminded of the adage, "When the only tool you have in hand is
a hammer, everything looks like nails."

With a Jet backend, I very much agree that DAO is really the only
tool we need. With ODBC backend, there are already a lot of things
we can do even going through Jet that it's conceivable that we can
build a good front-end client using nothing but DAO. But would I
go as far to say it should be the *only* tool?

I did not say that. I said "never use anything but DAO as your
DEFAULT DATABASE INTERFACE." That doesn't say "never use anything
else" -- it only says use DAO as the default until you need
something DAO can't do or doesn't do well, and then use the
non-default interface.

No, not really. I do reach for ADO when there
is a specific need for it, and it has served me well in few cases
where DAO came up short.

This is 100% consistent with what I wrote.

The cases are quite rare but when it does happen, I'm
glad to have the luxury of choosing a different data access
technology, even if ADO is dormant and superseded by newer
technologies (in which I also hope the Access team will remedy
somehow).

There is no contradiction between your practice and my principle as
I very carefully worded it. You read something different than the
plain sense of what I wrote, however.

--
David W. Fenton * * * * * * * * *http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com * *http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

Thank you to all the experts who answered. The choice is clear. Based
on the number of supporters among the experts for DAO, DAO is the way
to go

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

ADO or DAO? Which one more readable?

comp.databases.ms-access comp.databases.ms-access

Re: ADO or DAO? Which one more readable? - 07-19-2010 , 08:06 PM