"David Cressey" <cressey73@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:_dO7k.7468$qb7.996@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:Q667k.416$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.
Most of us learn by doing, and it's during that process that you make
mistakes. You're not seriously suggesting you've never made any?
AHS
|
