Re: adp vs mdb

re:

To take the "more layers" example: hypothetically, if the layers are faster
and more stable than the same solution with fewer layers, is it really a
problem that there are more of them? Basically what I'm saying is to look
at the facts Michael gives you, certainly, but make sure you look at them
critically, and preferably do your own testing or find other opinions about
the issues before assuming that they're as much of a problem for you as they
were for Michael.


THANK YOU ROBERT

To take the "more layers" example: hypothetically, if the layers are faster
and more stable than the same solution with fewer layers, is it really a
problem that there are more of them? Basically what I'm saying is to look
at the facts Michael gives you, certainly, but make sure you look at them
critically, and preferably do your own testing or find other opinions about
the issues before assuming that they're as much of a problem for you as they
were for Michael.

THANK YOU ROBERT






"Robert Morley" <rmorley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Ohh$KoWnHHA.3512@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
DAPs were heavily criticized as incomplete and basically useless,
and ADPs as a flawed effort (Michael pointed out that the workset
and the layers between ADP and database were the same or more than
between MDB and database).

Ummm...DAPs or ADPs? DAPs certainly WERE useless! But I'll assume you meant ADPs. Do you have *any* information on what the problems were, or why he deemed them useless? Without that, it's kind of difficult to offer any kind of cogent argument for or against them. It becomes strictly a case of "I remember he didn't like them" vs. "I don't see any problems".

I would say the accusation is completely unfounded. Completely.

You've obviously never suggested something to him that he disagreed with. I've been on the receiving end of his abusive mannerisms, and it's not pretty. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who's run into that sort of behaviour from him.

I like rants. It shows that somebody cares about what they are
writing about.

This is true, and I've ranted as much as the next guy, I'm sure, but it doesn't always lead to the most rational arguments or conclusions.

Arrogance is in the eye of the beholder, seems to me. I never found
Michael particularly arrogant. I found him sometimes dismissive of
those who'd demonstrated themselves to be undeserving of his
attention, but that's not the same thing as arrogant.

Ummm...actually, I would say that's a prime example of arrogance.

I wasn't aware that he was back at MS now,

Not "back" -- he was never an MS employee, just a contractor. He was
hired by MS on the internationalization team in 2003 or 2004
(thereabouts -- don't recall for certain).

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

I know the story the way Michael told it, which is most likely to be
as unflattering to MS as anyone's version, and he always said that
the article hurt a lot of feelings on the Access team because he was
criticizing them for things that they knew were not completely
implemented and cutting them no slack on it.

That's possible, but then I would have to ask, why criticize people about something they already know and have acknowledged are incomplete

Of course, at the same time as that happened, he was greatly
praising them for the nice improvements in Jet 4, especially with
regard to replication (which was his specialization back then).

Umm...so could it be that that was perceived as dumping on everybody else while praising himself and/or the people he worked with? That's sorta what it sounds like from what you just said. He *did* design their conflict resolver, after all, so I presume he worked a fair bit with the replication people at MS.

I don't see this as a salient observation -- the sky is blue, but
that doesn't have any impact on any of my posts (well, if it's
cloudy, I guess, I might be in a bad mood...).

Basically, I'm saying that you should treat Michael like you would treat a doctor...if it's anything important, get a second opinion. Facts are facts, but different people interpret them differently, and with his tendency to rant, you may want to seek a more rational observer before deciding whether something is a serious problem or a minor one. I will give him this, though, if Michael says there *is* a problem, it's almost certain that there is.

To take the "more layers" example: hypothetically, if the layers are faster and more stable than the same solution with fewer layers, is it really a problem that there are more of them? Basically what I'm saying is to look at the facts Michael gives you, certainly, but make sure you look at them critically, and preferably do your own testing or find other opinions about the issues before assuming that they're as much of a problem for you as they were for Michael.

If his article had raised issues that were insignificant, I wouldn't
be mentioning it. In fact, I've never known Michael to criticize any
MS product on trivial grounds. Indeed, he and I frequently got in
arguments over MS products, with him defending MS! That's why I have
always seen him as having the highest level of integrity, because he
would criticize MS where he fault it was warranted and defend MS
when he thought *that* was warranted.

Perhaps that's true, but that certainly hasn't been my impression of him over the years.

Check out comp.databases.ms-access for posts from Steve Jorgensen
and Lyle Fairfield. Both gave ADPs a huge effort and eventually,
both gave up on them entirely.

Steve has 5670 messages in that group, and Lyle has 2693 at the time of this post...could you be a little more specific, please?

I think a lot of the people who are satisfied with ADPs were not
Access developers before, so they don't know what they are missing
in terms of a well-designed and reliable front-end development
platform.

I don't know of very many people who jumped into ADPs with no previous Access experience. Certainly I didn't...I've been using Access since v1.1.



Rob


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: adp vs mdb
    ... To take the "more layers" example: ... at the facts Michael gives you, certainly, but make sure you look at them ... That's possible, but then I would have to ask, why criticize people about ...
    (microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver)
  • Re: adp vs mdb
    ... Ummm...DAPs or ADPs? ... Michael particularly arrogant. ... That's possible, but then I would have to ask, why criticize people about ... To take the "more layers" example: hypothetically, ...
    (microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver)
  • Re: Damn you, FEDEX! or Nikon D40 lost in Springfield, MO blackhole.
    ... the 2 mp Mavica he had been using with a Nikon D40. ... After shopping around, he got me to order one for him. ... The shipper had it insured, but from what I have read it could take weeks to sort this crap out. ... You may get your insurance from FedEx and a couple weeks later they find it and deliver it. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: 2005 was the hottest year on record
    ... Each night all you had to keep you warm was three layers of ... >> of the sleeping bag to keep from being too warm. ... Michael A. Terrell needs to learn to read. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Open Photoshop CS files in GIMP
    ... Michael: thanks for the link. ... it did not maintain the layers. ... I have been attempting to convert to GIMP. ... Probably psd, I assume... ...
    (comp.graphics.apps.gimp)