[AccessD] Framework Discussion - set up question

I agree with your last statement. I cannot use my years of access
development as a basis for database and programming expertise. I do quite a
bit with Oracle as my backend using Access as the front end. I also have
applications with access tables and flat file uploads. But that does not
count towards programming/database expertise/experience. Luckily, I have
other "real" database experience that offsets it.  I can understand part of
the "look down the nose" attitude, because I have people in my office who
say they are a database person and don't have the first clue as to design,
usage, implementation, let alone normalization. They feel that way because
they have 8-9 mini access databases that spit out data from queries. They
don't have any knowledge of coding behind forms or modules. Because of those
people, people like us on this list, don't get credit for applications
developed with access. 

grrr
Patti

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DWUTKA at marlow.com [mailto:DWUTKA at marlow.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 02:45 PM
> To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
> Subject: RE: [AccessD] Framework Discussion - set up question
> 
> 
> I have to agree with Susan on this.  Yes, it is a tool to 
> build desktop
> applications.  However, so is Word, Excel, and even Outlook 
> for that matter.
> VBA is a POWERFUL tool, and can quite frankly do anything it 
> wants too, to a
> Windows OS.  However, The Office Suite was ALSO meant to be a 
> tool for the
> average user.  No coding experience necessary to use any of the Office
> programs.  This includes Access.  Now, the fact that most users use
> Excel/Word, where they should be using Access, is simply due 
> to the fact
> that most people hear the word 'database', and freak.  
> Personally, I think
> that is do to overly complex systems built by 'professional 
> developers'.
> 
> The fact that the entire Office Suite is both easy to use, 
> and powerful
> enough to create actual applications, should be a kudos to 
> Microsoft, not a
> 'hot issue' to debate between developers.
> 
> Now, what I feel needs to be 'fought' for, is the acceptance of Access
> throughout the db development world.  I get tired of 
> listening to SQL Server
> and Oracle developers who think of Access as a toy, instead 
> of a database.  
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> Drew
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Charlotte
> Foust
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:20 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: RE: [AccessD] Framework Discussion - set up question
> 
> 
> >> I'm mostly in favor of anything that makes Access more available to
> the average user -- it IS a desktop application after all.
> 
> Are you TRYING to start a fight, Susan?!!?  Most of us have 
> been trying
> for years to convince Microsoft that this is NOT a desktop 
> application,
> it's a tool to *build* desktop applications.  Let the flames begin!
> 
> Charlotte Foust
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Susan Harkins [mailto:ssharkins at bellsouth.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:03 AM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: RE: [AccessD] Framework Discussion - set up question
> 
> 
> No. :) I'm talking about the built-in lookup field feature 
> that lets you
> display a related value from another table. Open a table in 
> Design view
> and click the Lookup tab in the Properties pane. 
> 
> Developers soundly trash them, but I find them rather cool -- and if
> abused, is that Access's fault? ;) I'm mostly in favor of 
> anything that
> makes Access more available to the average user -- it IS a desktop
> application after all.
> 
> 
> No, I don't use them, and I often have to "undo" them in 
> Northwind when
> I'm using that db in an article example, but I can see why users would
> like and use them. 
> 
> Here we goooooooooooooooooooo! ;) 
> 
> Susan H. 
> 
> Susan,
> I've seen people joke about this before and I've just assumed I knew
> what they were referring to ("hard coded" delimited lists that are not
> stored in a table).
> 
> Is this a correct assumption?
> 
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>