[AccessD] Paean to the Access Development Team

Jim Lawrence accessd at shaw.ca
Wed Jan 31 16:49:58 CST 2007


Thanks Marty... I will review this and maybe have a few questions.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of MartyConnelly
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:40 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Paean to the Access Development Team

Here is a basic starter article
It requires either Visual Studio 2005  Team or Enterprise version, I think,
along with .Net Framework 2.0. This gets you access to the ComClass 
template.

Call Into The .NET Framework From Existing Visual Basic 6.0 Apps
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/05/WrapItUp/default.aspx

I have this partially written up to use only VB.Net Express and Access 2003
or 2007.  Let me check it out and you can be a guinea pig to test it out
to see if I have missed anything.



Jim Lawrence wrote:

>Hi Marty:
>
>What steps would be required to accomplish this? Would you have any samples
>pieces that might help in creating such an environment?
>
>TIA
>Jim
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
>[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of MartyConnelly
>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:40 PM
>To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
>Subject: Re: [AccessD] Paean to the Access Development Team
>
>One thing you can do is call VB.Net or C## framework code
> from Access via a COM class wrapper creating a tlb and dll.
>
>Not that difficult if you need to merge the two code bases as some 
>things are easier
>and quicker to write in dotNet like Web Services and xml reader classes
>
>Some standalone .exe files still required a runtime install with VB6 and 
>VB.Net
>requires the dotNet Framework installed.
>
>
>artful at rogers.com wrote:
>
>  
>
>>In the beginning were Relational Databases -- a valiant attempt by the
late
>>    
>>
>and lamented Dr. Edgar (Ted) Codd. His set-based theories changed the
>database world. I wish he had lived 20 more years, so he could address the
>new issues. (He did try, late in life, to address the OODB issues, but
>didn't survive long enough to complete his arguments.)
>  
>
>>Yes, Dr. Codd rationalized the world of databases as viewed from set
>>    
>>
>theory. But the most important and radical of Dr. Codd's propositions was
>that statement X ought to work in implementations Y and Z. 
>  
>
>>Vendors and their marketing staff view the world differently. Thus they
>>    
>>
>foisted upon Dr. Codd's universal language the Language Extension. And the
>Language Extensions proliferated, on grounds similar to brand-name crack or
>heroin dealers in Manhattan. 
>  
>
>>The new mantra: "Adhere to the standards, but toss in a few really
>>    
>>
>addictive commands that are way cool and extend the language in proprietary
>ways."
>  
>
>>Dr. Codd's rules were thus undermined by the capitalist system, at every
>>    
>>
>possible step. "Offer tempting extensions that force or at least coerce
>total buy-in." Make it difficult or impossible to port code-X from
>implementation Y to implementation Z. To the extent that you buy in, you
are
>our captive market.
>  
>
>>Any reasonable (i.e. non-marketing) person would agree that this approach
>>    
>>
>totally violates everything Dr. Codd's achievements stood for. As an IBM
>Fellow, Dr. Codd was above and beyond the fray of market competition. He
>thought only of the big picture. Smaller minds plundered his ideas and the
>result is an array of variants upon commands that ought to have been
>standard across all implementations.
>  
>
>>The ISO SQL projects notwithstanding, virtually every vendor persists in
>>    
>>
>redefining or extending the language in proprietary ways.  I have a tiny
>book published by O'Reilly and written by Jonathan Gennick, which is a
>Prince Valiant attempt to sort all this out and provide a Rosetta Stone.
>Thank you, Sir Jonathan! You have saved those cross-implementation readers
>such as I hundreds or even thousands of hours of investigative time. To be
>objective, there are one or two subjects you haven't covered, but you are
>the Valiant of the SQL Wars!
>  
>
>>I began in dBASE not SQL (and expect that many readers will immediately
>>    
>>
>slight me for my origins), but even back then the strategic path was the
>same. Wayne Ratliff and Jeb Long invented a language based on JPL-DIS. It
>was called Vulcan, but after one ad in Byte magazine they discovered that
>Harris Computing owned the name. Enter Hal Pollock, a marketing genious. He
>suggested the name dBASE II, on the grounds that no one would buy dBASE
1.0.
>He also created the legendary "bilge pump" ad. dBASE II took over the CP/M
>and then DOS world by storm. A couple of years later, a vastly superior
>product called KnowledgeMan came along, but could not compete against
>Pollock's brilliant marketing of dBASE II. 
>  
>
>>Despite numerous interanl arguments, Ashton-Tate refused to release a
>>    
>>
>compiler, and committed seppukku. A couple of frustrated, not to mention
>opportunity-sensitive, A-T employees, met in a restaurant called Nantucket,
>and  to conceive and devise a compiler for dBASE. The result was Clipper,
>from Nantucket Software.
>  
>
>>I bought into Nantucket big-time (not in shares but in development hours).
>>    
>>
>I wrote two books about Clipper, and I like to pretend that I helped lead
>the way for these folks into O-O programming, but in reality I borrowed
>lessons learned from playing with SmallTalk and other O-O languages.
>  
>
>>The point is, Brian and Rich and Barry realized that the way to capture
the
>>    
>>
>market is to provide 98% compatibility with dBASE syntax, but also offer
>totally addictive extensions, which delivered much more power but also
>trapped the developer into Clipper. The Clipper code would not readily port
>to FoxPro or dbCompiler and most certainly not into dBASE. So, to the
extent
>that one bought in to the extensions -- and I bought in, big time, because
>they were so powerful -- one excluded porting the code to other variants of
>dBASE.
>  
>
>>Jump-cut to the SQL world. Oracle releases Java extensions. MS releases
>>    
>>
>.NET extensions. Sybase struggles to tread water (not a slight on their
team
>-- they are underfunded and carry the albatross of PowerBuilder
>compatibility, etc.) and Borland tries to find a way to fit. Later, Gupta
>and Clarion and a dozen others. The market is a vicious place.
>  
>
>>The world is not flat, and here is an interesting example. Although I know
>>    
>>
>nothing about MS internal development and even less about the development
>hierarchy, what I can deduce from outside is that the MS-Access team is
seen
>as a wart, if not a threat, to the marketing of all the .NET stuff. This,
in
>my view, is most unfortunate. Admittedly, there are things that an Access
>expert cannot implement, but that covers the 20% of the people who insist
>upon a BMW or better. The "Chevrolet" set would be most pleased to learn
>that an Access developer can deliver a functional application for
>approximately 1/10 the cost of the equivalent app developed in .NET.
>  
>
>>The C# and VB.NET developers don't like to acknowledge this, nor does
>>    
>>
>Microsoft. But facts are facts. If you need to deliver a shrink-wrapped
>package that depends on nothing (a laughable concept in itself, but let's
>let that pass), then C# or VB.NET are the languages of choice. But if you
>need to deliver something quickly and easily changed in the light of
revised
>requirements, then I vote Access as the best available platform. There is
no
>problem in directly connecting it to the SQL Server database of choice.
>Granted, an Access developer cannot deliver an executable. This distinction
>matters, apparently, to those who would bill you 10 times as much for an
>equivalent project.
>  
>
>>I cannot understand why Microsoft continues (over the past decade at
least)
>>    
>>
>to slight the achievements possible in Access. This particular newsgroup is
>ALL about what can be done in Access. I can cite numerous developers here
>who have bolstered my argument, but I will cite only a few and hope those
>whose contributions I didn't cite will forgive me): 
>  
>
>>Bartow, Brock, Connelly, Carbonell, Colby, Der, Enright, Fields, Foust,
>>    
>>
>Harkins, Kjos, Hindman, Lacey, Lawrence, Matte, Mattys, McLachlan, Reid,
>Salakhetitov, Skolits, Smolin, Tapia, Tejpal, Williamson, Wutka.
>  
>
>>I wish all the best to MS-Access development team, and I hope that one or
>>    
>>
>two or three of said team occasionally visits our group, to learn how much
>we appreciate their efforts, and to know that we understand what challenges
>they face. All the marketing $ focus on .NET (which is very cool - no
slight
>on that team intended) but the Access team delivers top-quality stuff in
>spite of its underfunding. 
>  
>
>>Hats off to the Access development team. Without you, many of us would be
>>    
>>
>in serious financial trouble. Thanks to you, we can make a living. You give
>us the tools and we discover ingenious ways to use them.
>  
>
>>My $.02. 
>>
>>Arthur Fuller
>>Technical Writer, Data Modeler, SQL Sensei
>>Artful Databases Organization
>>www.artfulsoftware.com
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

-- 
Marty Connelly
Victoria, B.C.
Canada

-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com




More information about the AccessD mailing list