jwcolby
jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Wed Jun 22 11:54:26 CDT 2011
Jim, > I'm not sure what it is I'm micromanaging<g>; all I pointed out was that if you implemented a message class as you outlined in your first post, it would be inefficient. That was, and I think you would have to agree given your responses since then, a legitimate point. To be honest I do not think it is inefficient at all. It would be inefficient if it made any damned difference at all. It doesn't. It would be inefficient if it were sucking up processor cycles. It isn't. Is it the absolutely most efficient method of accomplishing the objective? No, but it makes no damned difference. If I were to re-engineer it to be as efficient as possible I would save 1 trillionth of a percent of whatever metric you choose. > programmer takes the attitude of "it's just a few extra cycles", then sooner or latter, you end up with a problem. If every programmer in the world wasted a few trillionths of a percent of whatever metric you choose, it would make no damned difference whatsoever. This method, even taken to the extreme, used in every single form in every Access program running on the planet is never going to waste more than a few processor cycles. The whole point of events is that processing only happens when an event happens. Events can only be raised and sunk in classes so if you don't use classes then you don't use events. If you aren't using events that you almost certainly doing some very inefficient programming. >A. I don't use classes for the most part with Access. Without full inheritance, I don't think it's worth the effort. That is just nonsense. In the last year I have engineered a *major* system in C# and I have used inheritance a handful of times. If you can't find a use for classes without inheritance then: a) You aren't much of a programmer and b) You obviously don't use Access forms (they are a class) or combos (they are a class) or recordsets (they are a class) or reports (class), queries (class) or anything else in Access. *Every single object* in Access is a class and you can't inherit any of them. Would you care to rethink your statement? To say that Access' classes are useless without inheritance is mind boggling nonsense. I was making an honest effort to demonstrate a method of handling a problem. Apparently that annoyed you? Perhaps because you "rarely use classes" and so could not accomplish this solution. At any rate I have no idea what you are doing other than being argumentative. John W. Colby www.ColbyConsulting.com On 6/22/2011 11:26 AM, Jim Dettman wrote: > John, > Mind boggling nonsense after that...