[AccessD] Why Change Field Size/was Change Field Size

All sweeping statements and unsubstantianted gross generalizations 
should be avoided in debate
For example "all bald headed guys named John have a testostorone deficency"

John Colby wrote:

>Ah hell, I still have all my hair and I'll make "bald statements" all I want
>to.  
>
>Jürgen's just POd because he wasn't included in the mutual admiration
>society.  I don't think you were even around "back in the day" when Jürgen
>was getting into 'debates', back in the day when he was doing every little
>thing in code because it was faster and he was on a dialup to a Nazi IT
>center where he had to program around all their limitations.  I have never
>seen ANYONE with more creativity than Jürgen.  Luckily he got a new job
>IIRC.
>
>Welcome back Jürgen. 
>
>John W. Colby
>www.ColbyConsulting.com 
>
>Contribute your unused CPU cycles to a good cause:
>http://folding.stanford.edu/
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
>[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of DWUTKA at marlow.com
>Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 4:06 PM
>To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
>Subject: Re: [AccessD] Why Change Field Size/was Change Field Size
>
>True, but what you are talking about is not extremely useful.  The problem
>is, to totally qualify a topic, and it's various solutions, would require
>megabytes of background information and design theory.
>
>Take for example the current topic of field size.  I use 255 for ALL text
>fields.  I have my reasons.  Are there consequences to do this?  Yes.  Are
>there consequences with limiting field sizes?  Yes.  To fully qualify my
>reasons, or the reasons for the other side would take weeks of posting.
>Every topic on the matter can branch into a dozen other topics, each with
>their various 'side issues'.  
>
>With text fields within a Jet database, you have the subject of how data is
>written to the text fields.  Jet uses a one 'size' byte to determine the
>length of the text that follows.  So there is no lost space when the full
>limit is not used.  Then there is the topic of a record size limit, which
>gets into the topics of page sizes, proper normalization, relational design,
>data validation, etc.
>
>Each branch of the topic spreads out...further and further.
>
>So, what's my point?  The point is that NEITHER side should make 'bald
>statements', without some sort of basic qualification.  This applies to all
>of our 'debates' (and we've had some heated ones).  
>
>As for the mutual admiration society, well, I think we all need a pat on the
>back sometimes, and quite frankly, nothing is more fun then debating
>opposite sides of a topic with an equal in the field.  It can be dangerous
>though, tempers can rise, and egos can be crushed, so every once in a while,
>we need to admire each other and let our mutual respect be shown.  It just
>cushions the blows from the next 'debate'! ;)
>
>Drew
>
>  
>

-- 
Marty Connelly
Victoria, B.C.
Canada