Heenan, Lambert
Lambert.Heenan at AIG.com
Tue Jun 13 08:15:56 CDT 2006
But you do tend to SHOUT a lot. What's that about? -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of DWUTKA at marlow.com Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 8:28 PM To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com Subject: Re: [AccessD] Class Rebuttal was: Basic Unbound Form ... Well, at least you have conceded that they have their place. And I'd like to point out, in the Basic and Intermediate tutorials that I posted, I NEVER used a GLOBAL variable. I used the Public statement, which is NOT global in a Class. It is still module level in a class, because the value pertains to that class (or any particular instance of that class). Drew -----Original Message----- From: Heenan, Lambert [mailto:Lambert.Heenan at aig.com] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:48 PM To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' Subject: Re: [AccessD] Class Rebuttal was: Basic Unbound Form ... "It's poor design that makes the problem there, not globals. " - no it's globals that make the poor design possible. "Just because you now have local variables, doesn't mean that there is no place for globals. " OK. Let's concede that point. Where does it get us? There is a (small) place for globals, but I would argue that the use of globals should not be introduced until the new programmer has grasped the concept of local variables and what they can do for her/him. Otherwise you just encourage over use of globals. Sure there are times when a global is appropriate, or at least relatively risk free, but I'd still like to see an example of where a global variable is essential. Lambert -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Stuart McLachlan Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:32 PM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: Re: [AccessD] Class Rebuttal was: Basic Unbound Form ... On 12 Jun 2006 at 16:16, Heenan, Lambert wrote: > Sorry , can't agree with that either. Public variables are there so > that code written for ancient systems, running languages that had only > one kind of variable - public ones - can continue to be run. It's a > backward compatibility feature. I know that may seem like a bold, > overarching statement, but look at the history of programming > languages. Why was the concept of 'local variables' dreamt up? Because > having all global variables was a nightmare The fact that lots people > (myself included!) have a tendency to cut corners and use them as a > quick and dirty way to get data moving from one module to another does > not mean that it's a good idea. There's really no excuse for using a > global, as rewriting the code to use local variables requires very > little effort. > I'm with Drew on this one. Just because you now have local variables, doesn't mean that there is no place for globals. Sure, "all global viariables was a nightmare" but we're not talking about "all global" here. There are a still situations where a global is the simplest and best solution. Why limit yourself to only using some of the tools in you toolbag? ... > it's based on the idea that a global, by its very > nature can be modified from almost anywhere at all in code, and that > makes for a debug/maintenance problem. > It's poor design that makes the problem there, not globals. The same can be said for any other alternative to a global such as Static Function, Class Property etc. -- Stuart -- 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