"code" tables?

#41

Thanks to all who responded. I new feel quite confidant in shooting this
idea down.
:-)

Frank

#42

Thanks to all who responded. I new feel quite confidant in shooting this
idea down.
:-)

Frank

#43

Thanks to all who responded. I new feel quite confidant in shooting this
idea down.
:-)

Frank

#44

"David Cressey" <cressey73 (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

"Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom (AT) accesswave (DOT) ca> wrote in message
news:Q667k.416$yg7.75 (AT) edtnps82 (DOT) ..
"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick (AT) efirstbank (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:485BF5A5.6F0F.0085.0 (AT) efirstbank (DOT) com...
On 6/20/2008 at 2:49 AM, in message
69KdnXkzOICq8sbVnZ2dnUVZ8tDinZ2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net>, Roy
Hann<specially (AT) processed (DOT) almost.meat> wrote:
[ SNIP ]
So what? Tables aren't rationed.

The desire to conceal complexity is not the same as the desire to
remove

complexity. The former is counterproductive while the latter is
praiseworthy. What you describe is a a desire to conceal what is
going
on.
How does that help anyone?

Honestly, I don't know his reasoning. We're going to have a discussion
next
week about it, and I'm sure more than one of us will shoot it down.
Until
then I'm not sure what is real concern is.

The other programmer's reasoning is presumably exactly what he said in
his
email (the snippet that you included), the concern that there will be an
explosion in the number of tables. That he's not aware of the pitfalls of
his suggested approach is no great surprise...back in the day I surely
designed tables like this also, I'm sure all of us have.

Some of us learned database design before we began designing databases.

Most of us learn by doing, and it's during that process that you make
mistakes. You're not seriously suggesting you've never made any?

AHS

#45

"David Cressey" <cressey73 (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

"Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom (AT) accesswave (DOT) ca> wrote in message
news:Q667k.416$yg7.75 (AT) edtnps82 (DOT) ..
"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick (AT) efirstbank (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:485BF5A5.6F0F.0085.0 (AT) efirstbank (DOT) com...
On 6/20/2008 at 2:49 AM, in message
69KdnXkzOICq8sbVnZ2dnUVZ8tDinZ2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net>, Roy
Hann<specially (AT) processed (DOT) almost.meat> wrote:
[ SNIP ]
So what? Tables aren't rationed.

The desire to conceal complexity is not the same as the desire to
remove

complexity. The former is counterproductive while the latter is
praiseworthy. What you describe is a a desire to conceal what is
going
on.
How does that help anyone?

Honestly, I don't know his reasoning. We're going to have a discussion
next
week about it, and I'm sure more than one of us will shoot it down.
Until
then I'm not sure what is real concern is.

The other programmer's reasoning is presumably exactly what he said in
his
email (the snippet that you included), the concern that there will be an
explosion in the number of tables. That he's not aware of the pitfalls of
his suggested approach is no great surprise...back in the day I surely
designed tables like this also, I'm sure all of us have.

Some of us learned database design before we began designing databases.

Most of us learn by doing, and it's during that process that you make
mistakes. You're not seriously suggesting you've never made any?

AHS

#46

"David Cressey" <cressey73 (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

"Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom (AT) accesswave (DOT) ca> wrote in message
news:Q667k.416$yg7.75 (AT) edtnps82 (DOT) ..
"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick (AT) efirstbank (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:485BF5A5.6F0F.0085.0 (AT) efirstbank (DOT) com...
On 6/20/2008 at 2:49 AM, in message
69KdnXkzOICq8sbVnZ2dnUVZ8tDinZ2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net>, Roy
Hann<specially (AT) processed (DOT) almost.meat> wrote:
[ SNIP ]
So what? Tables aren't rationed.

The desire to conceal complexity is not the same as the desire to
remove

complexity. The former is counterproductive while the latter is
praiseworthy. What you describe is a a desire to conceal what is
going
on.
How does that help anyone?

Honestly, I don't know his reasoning. We're going to have a discussion
next
week about it, and I'm sure more than one of us will shoot it down.
Until
then I'm not sure what is real concern is.

The other programmer's reasoning is presumably exactly what he said in
his
email (the snippet that you included), the concern that there will be an
explosion in the number of tables. That he's not aware of the pitfalls of
his suggested approach is no great surprise...back in the day I surely
designed tables like this also, I'm sure all of us have.

Some of us learned database design before we began designing databases.

Most of us learn by doing, and it's during that process that you make
mistakes. You're not seriously suggesting you've never made any?

AHS

#47

Quote:

On 6/23/2008 at 10:16 AM, in message
485F77F7.6F0F.0085.0 (AT) efirstbank (DOT) com>,

Frank Swarbrick<Frank.Swarbrick (AT) efirstbank (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Thanks to all who responded. I new feel quite confidant in shooting this
idea down.
:-)

Interesting. Here's a page my co-worker is using to justify his position:
http://www.dbforums.com/showthread.php?t=1619660

Frank

#48

Quote:

On 6/23/2008 at 10:16 AM, in message
485F77F7.6F0F.0085.0 (AT) efirstbank (DOT) com>,

Frank Swarbrick<Frank.Swarbrick (AT) efirstbank (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Thanks to all who responded. I new feel quite confidant in shooting this
idea down.
:-)

Interesting. Here's a page my co-worker is using to justify his position:
http://www.dbforums.com/showthread.php?t=1619660

Frank

#49

Quote:

On 6/23/2008 at 10:16 AM, in message
485F77F7.6F0F.0085.0 (AT) efirstbank (DOT) com>,

Frank Swarbrick<Frank.Swarbrick (AT) efirstbank (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Thanks to all who responded. I new feel quite confidant in shooting this
idea down.
:-)

Interesting. Here's a page my co-worker is using to justify his position:
http://www.dbforums.com/showthread.php?t=1619660

Frank

#50

"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick (AT) efirstbank (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

On 6/23/2008 at 10:16 AM, in message
485F77F7.6F0F.0085.0 (AT) efirstbank (DOT) com>,
Frank Swarbrick<Frank.Swarbrick (AT) efirstbank (DOT) com> wrote:
Thanks to all who responded. I new feel quite confidant in shooting this
idea down.
:-)

Interesting. Here's a page my co-worker is using to justify his position:
http://www.dbforums.com/showthread.php?t=1619660

I guess if neither the programmer nor his manager knows what a DBMS is
supposed to provide they won't ever see much harm in subverting it. I
haven't the time or energy to start explaining what's wrong with that, and
no possibility of being rewarded for it if I did. In any case, ignorance
is bliss.

Roy