John Bartow
john at winhaven.net
Sat Dec 13 20:56:36 CST 2003
I would think of sticking to ANSI SQL and just touch on the various proprietary implementations. That's pretty much how I learned SQL. It's served me well. I think the various proprietary implementations could be an elective course on their own. I also second Arthur's comment, its not about what tool but what interface - GUI or text based. Access has little to do with the discussion until you decide you should use a GUI. Mentioning Access just polarizes the issue. I learned using text base on Unix. I love the GUI but then that's not how I learned it so I have a good reason for loving it :o) JB > -----Original Message----- > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Lawhon, Alan C > Contractor/Morgan Research > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:22 AM > To: 'accessd at databaseadvisors.com' > Subject: [AccessD] Slashdot: SQL vs Access for Learning Database > Concepts? > > > This was posted on Slashdot last night. I'm sure some of the > folks on here, > (like maybe Susan Harkins, Martin Reid, and John Colby), might have an > interesting opinion about whether or not Access is a good > "training vehicle" for > learning SQL. > > > http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/11/1811206&mode=threa d&tid=146&tid= 185&tid=99 P.S. About midway down in the reader postings, there are links to several articles comparing the pros and cons of Access [SQL] to other SQL products. Alan C. Lawhon _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com