Arthur Fuller
fuller.artful at gmail.com
Thu Jul 4 12:57:45 CDT 2013
You're quite right and I shall try to convert some of my code into classes rather than static functions. I'll reply in a day with how it went. Now that I'm 65 and semi-retired, I'll have to resurrect some old code to verify your thesis, but even at age 65 I am willing to learn. As my best friend has frequently said. the best defense against Alzheimer's is to continue thinking. So now that I am retired, I am reading the two greatest books about chess written in the 20th century. It takes me about a week per chapter, but I have noticed dramatic improvements in my local game, in a park nearby, lots of Russians and Czechs and Germans and Dutch -- and that's why I love my city Toronto. It's not about chess, it's not about language or culture. In this city we deal with 190+ languages in our public schools. That is one take on us. Another is that I could visit a restaurant every night of the year and hit a different ethnicity. I just visited an Afgani restaurant for the first time, and it was wonderful. Two blocks away is a real Mexican restaurant (as opposed to Tex-Mex, which is ok but not authentic. My memory is failing me right now, but I'm recalling a baked fish On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Charlotte Foust <charlotte.foust at gmail.com>wrote: > Arthur, > > Why do you find classes more complicated than static functions? You could > do precisely the same thing with a class, either an individual class for > the value or a globals class to hold all the values, or both. > > Charlotte > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Arthur Fuller <fuller.artful at gmail.com > >wrote: > > > I hate globals and prefer static functions (also known as get/set > > functions). They are way superior to global vars. I wrote about this > (maybe > > TechRepublic, can't recall, doesn't matter, and will be happy to supply > > some example code upon request. Another approach is to create classes, > > which IMO is too complex, but I'm flexible on this topic.I like static > > functions because they are compact and consist of only few lines of code; > > of course they do not work when passed to a SQL back end, but within > Access > > they are wonderful. So my final recommendation is this: if the BE is > > Access, static functions are wonderful; If the BE is something else, say > > MuSQL or MS-SqlServer or Oracle, then static functions should be avoided. > > > > > > > -- > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > -- Arthur Cell: 647.710.1314 Prediction is difficult, especially of the future. -- Niels Bohr