[AccessD] Autonumber Assigned Immediately

It can also be called over-building.

I have an app that works perfectly and has done so since 2000.  I wrote it
with simplicity in mind.  I had it ready for use in 6 months with very minor
bugs.  I sold that app to an engineering firm that thought "building it
right, the first time" was the way to go and immediately set out to
completely re-write the app.  The purchased the app in March of 2003 and in
October of 2004 gave up with nothing that worked and gave the whole thing
back.  They thought they needed to build everything to "the right way" -
they were overbuilding the project.

The question is "Who decides what the right way is?"  Is it mine that works
perfectly and is technically fine and has been making me good money since
2000...or the engineers that was written by the book, but never worked and
therefore never produced a penny?  BTW, I've seen the details of their work
records and they have over $300,000 invested in programming time.

Getting stuff to the market is sometimes more important than "perfect" code
or design.  Ask Netscape how writing perfect code worked out for them.

I'm not a programmer - at least I don't consider myself one.  I have never
had any formal programming training and therefore have never been caught up
in books and such.  I simply build stuff that works.  If my clients are
happy and I'm making money I have to conclude the design is just fine.

Reuben Cummings
GFC, LLC
812.523.1017


> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of David Mcafee
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 5:18 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Autonumber Assigned Immediately
>
>
> So you don't have to go back there and fix things.
>
> It's called "building it right, the first time" :)
>
>
> --- Susan Harkins <ssharkins at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > My point would be -- if there are no rules, why
> > bother until there are some?
> > It might never happen.
> >
> > Susan H.
> >
> > Six months later you are told that all the numbers
> > have to be padded to 6
> > digits. Ok, either change the field to a text field
> > (if it wasn't such
> > already), revise the number generator accordingly,
> > and run an update query
> > on the existing records to include the padding, or
> > find all uses of the
> > 'number' field everywhere in the database and change
> > the formatting of the
> > number display. [I know which choice I would make :)
> >
> >
> > Then a year down the line the suits say "You have to
> > include an alpha prefix
> > that shows which office created the record". Fine
> > (As long as you can
> > identify the office within the rest of the data).
> > You change the 'number'
> > generating code to tack on the prefix for new
> > records and then run an update
> > query to add the prefix to all the existing records.
> >
> >
> > Sit back and wait for the next bright idea about
> > what extra information can
> > be stuffed into a 'serial number'. All of this is
> > just a minor pain in the
> > butt because of course you are not using this field
> > as a Primary Key, that's
> > handled by an autonumber that no one sees, so all
> > your relationships are
> > intact.
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>