"Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Q667k.416$yg7.75@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:485BF5A5.6F0F.0085.0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>> On 6/20/2008 at 2:49 AM, in message
> > <69KdnXkzOICq8sbVnZ2dnUVZ8tDinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Roy
> > Hann<specially@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> [ SNIP ]
> >> So what? Tables aren't rationed.
> >>
> >> The desire to conceal complexity is not the same as the desire to
remove
> >>
> >> complexity. The former is counterproductive while the latter is
> >> praiseworthy. What you describe is a a desire to conceal what is
going
> >> on.
> >> How does that help anyone?
> >
> > Honestly, I don't know his reasoning. We're going to have a
discussion
> > next
> > week about it, and I'm sure more than one of us will shoot it down.
Until
> > then I'm not sure what is real concern is.
>
> The other programmer's reasoning is presumably exactly what he said in
his
> email (the snippet that you included), the concern that there will be an
> explosion in the number of tables. That he's not aware of the pitfalls
of
> his suggested approach is no great surprise...back in the day I surely
> designed tables like this also, I'm sure all of us have.
>
Some of us learned database design before we began designing databases.
|
