"MiB" wrote in message
Re-read the thread, please, and note carefully that you attacked me ad
hominem, dishing out insults. I am not "suffering" any mistakes just
for having different experience or opinion compared to yours.
An ad Hominem attack is attacking someone based on not arguing the subject
matter. I'm directly countering and calling out your incorrect subject
matter being pointed out here, and as such it not ad hominem at all.
Since your post responded mine, and you did not contribute to this
thread before, doesn't it feel a little prepostrous to claim I did not
know what you are going to talk about?
Please note also, I explicitly referred to the JET engine, not to
Access.
Absolutely nobody else in this discussion is attempting to limit this to JET
and there is absolutely no reasonable reason to do so.
If there's no reasonable argument or intellectual reason for limiting this
discussion to jet, then why are you insisting on doing so?
You call yourself Access MVP and still seem to identify the
*GUI* Access with the DB engine it connects to.
No, that's not what I did it all. It is a logical assumption that the user
is either dealing with JET or ACE. We don't know which, but we know based on
the given testimony it is certainly one of these two choices.
In other words I'm not willing to argue on fallacy and false assumptions
like you are so willing to do.
In fact I use the term access data engine or default access engine because
the term encompasses both possibilities and I was well aware as such.
You see, we don't know at this point in time which data engine we are
talking about.
However it is of ABSOLUTELY NO INTELLECTUAL USE TO LIMIT this discussion to
jet when we cannot make that assumption.
As I pointed out, coming here and pointing out that a database engine has
been depreciated and is not under development is a completely misleading
statement when in fact the code base you spoke of is currently under
development by the folks in Redmond. This is not an opinion, but a given
fact.
The fact that the product you spoke of has undergone a name change is
absolutely no excuse for coming here and attempting to state that such a
product has been depreciated.
The code base and product you speak of continues under development.
We ONLY know for sure that the poster is talking about a Access default
engine used with access, and that certainly does not mean that such a data
engine has been depreciated and thus your advice in this regards is of
little use and without merit.
To make a claim in public that jet is not receiving development dollars, but
leaving out the fact that there's a code compatible "successor" engine still
in current development shows that you prefer dishonesty and are willing to
spread misinformation in public.
Such a claim on my part is not an ad Hominem attack on you but simply based
on the factual evidence that you've presented here so far.
In the program of the original poster he does not
say he is using Access at all, so why do you bend my words into caring
about the Access product? He does mention file-based MDB, though, I
can have that without installing Access.
Where did I make a claim that you care or not care about the access product?
However you did come here to piss and that is rather clear.
My point here is you don't care about the truth and choose to spread
misinformation by leaving important facts out of your discussion.
Leaving half the facts out means your spreading damaging misinformation
based on your ignorance.
Such behavior now becomes actual malice on your part now that I pointed
this out to you.
My original post explicitly references JET, not ACE, not MSDE. You are
committing a straw man fallacy yourself.
No I'm not, because I did a limit my context of discussion to jet, but
simply to that of the current data engine used with access and that is a
HUGE difference.
Actually, the original poster did not describe his environmental
scenario at all, so jumping to *your* conclusion its about a local app
with local database has no more merit than mine.
Yes my position is different because regardless of his position and his
claim of (or lack of) a network the basic information STILL says that a
access data engine is being used.
We don't know if it JET or ACE but as I pointed out based on the reasoning
and evidence given here such a distinction is not relevant to this
discussion at all. I'm not making the claim that it's necessary local app,
but I am most certainly making the claim that the access data engine is
involved here. And my claim is not limited to just jet.
You simply don't have ANY other evidence to make any other conclusion is
that in this regards EXCEPT that Access is involved here. That pretty much
suggest and limits are choices to the two database engines. But it DOES NOT
limit us to jet! So my case is VERY different the your claim.
Yes, and its my right to do so. I will say what I want in public and
you will not succeed in trying to silence me. Think about the picture
you present to the PUBLIC by giving bad names to others.
Who trying to silence you? You are however doing a great job of making a
fool yourself. I'm simply calling out your misinformation and lack of
knowledge on this subject, and you're now attempting to turn this around and
somehow limit this discussion to jet when there's no factual reason to do
so.
Furthermore my claim stands that you in public its stated that the Access
database technology called JET has been depreciated and it is not undergoing
development from the folks in Redmond. This is complete wrong since that
code is still currently under development. A name change is not a excuse for
ignorance here.
Since when is pointing out falsehoods and information an attempt to silence
you? it's not an attempt to silence you, it's a attempt to point out your
misinformation here.
As I pointed out, at the end of the day to me the truth matters. For you it
just a case of attempting to get away with a position to justify you dislike
of some product or the so called holier than now feeling superior than
everybody else attitude you displayed here.
You have no idea on what information I base my criticism on. So how
come you infere they are wrong and incorrect?
Your claim of the database engine being depreciated and not under
development is a false one.
For me to come out and publicly state that SQL server is not under
development anymore, but fail to mention that there are new versions that
succeeded and are code compatible would be extremely dishonest on Anyone's
part. This would be DOUBLE so if a name change of the product and code base
had occurred.
Same goes for you. You did not give any source for your information,
so why should I believe you?
My information was based on architecture. Are you actually telling me as a
physicist that you have to be told if you drop a ball it'll fall because you
don't realize the effects of gravity?
Are you actually telling you have to have a test that some hand coded
assembler is not going to run faster than some interpreted scripting
language? In other words you're flat out in public admitting that you can't
make any logical conclusions based on your years of training. Why am I not
surprised?
Ad hominem, again. Only a person of great foolhardiness would make the
assumption that JET is faster with no reference to tests given at all.
I gave the context and limitations of where you'll see that better
performance.
You don't do that either, so why should I?
Because I'm basing my claims on fundamental and basic architecture knowledge
that everybody in this industry should have. My claims not based on personal
experience, it's based on an understanding of computer architectures and how
they function.
Therefore before I ever had to do any testing, understanding the
architectures of the products told me what the outcome was going to be
beforehand. The fact that I've been very able to verify these results with
personal experience is rather a moot point since those observations I've
made are the result of that computer architecture, and they are not subject
to my opinion or whims like your position is.
Or thought. What resources do YOU have other than your individual
experience? Marketing flyers?
No, I spent time to learn about the computer industry and therefore I'm able
to make logical conclusions here. This is no different than a person has
been trained in math doesn't have to have the answer to every single
problem, but using logic and a set of math rules you can deduce that outcome
with intelligence and reasoning, something you're clearly claiming that
you're unwilling to do!
In case you're wondering, we can use a computer and math to prove that a
triangle must have 3 sides. In fact we never even have to have seen a real
triangle or even know that one ever existed before hand. We simply can use
logical reasoning and math rules and prove that the triangle must have 3
sides. This type of logic and reasoning is the very act of writing software
and as such it should be no surprise to you that we can use a set of rules
to expand our knowledge to determine outcomes here.
I believe you are biased because you
make a living out of Access and anything that tarnishes your favourite
toy feels like an attack on your livelihood. Get real.
Actually the problem is reverse. You are the one that stepped in here with
your holier then now all knowing attitude. And as a result you attempted to
make some foolish claims about performance based on one lame experience and
not knowledge about the computer industry.
And this simply shows me that you're willing to toss aside training and
intelligence, all for that of an emotional outburst.
Why not go all the way, then? Lets store all data in a text file. Make
it XML if you must. Read everything into memory
I always realize I'm totally pawing my opponent and winning the discussion
when the person has to cook up all kinds a bizarre and strange and stupid
straw man arguments. Who the hell on earth brought the issue of xml and all
these bizarre text file technologies? Now might be interesting to note that
the new version of ACE does have support for SharePoint complex data types
(something that SQL server lacks by the way - and with more data going into
SharePoint, this is real problem for SQL server).
At the end of the day however talking about the complex data support in ACE
is really moot since that of xml text files and the like is NOT related to
this discussion about the architecture of a "in process" database engine
that access has compared to the server based architecture system like SQL
server.
Bringing up ridiculous concepts like xml and text files into this discussion
has little if any relevance here. How does xml and text files have any
relevance to the comparison of the two architectures in the context of the
database engine that we are discussing here? I suppose we could bring up
some text processing engines, but such an attempt on your part is silly and
is a hollow straw man attempt to change the subject here.
The idea that any <insert your favourite tool here> is the center of
the universe is a big mistake on your part.
Arguing about Ford VS. Chevy was exciting back in grade school days. Your
pathetic attempt to misdirect as discussion about some favorite tool and yet
at the same time coming here to spread misinformation about a product you
clearly know little about really shows your true colors.
Worse you coming here and making claims about a product that supposedly you
claim knowledge about is rather pathetic.
Your misinformation and willingness to confuse claims about jet having been
depreciated while leaving out the successor as is well noted. And as noted,
you claims in terms of performance are also well noted.
I consider Access a niche
product, limiting applications to one single operating system platform
on client and server.
What single platform you talking about? Access 2010 has now the option of
horizontally scalable cloud publishing options. When you publish Access
applications to office 365 or SharePoint then Access forms are converted
into xaml (zammel). The form code becomes browser compatible JavaScript and
the reports become RDL (they use SQL server reporting services). This is a
true cloud OS architecture and this publishing to office 365 does not limit
Access to using JET/ACE nor is JET involved after you publish to the cloud
and consume the application on say your iPad (no ActiveX or silver light is
required). Here is a video of mine if you wondering how this looks:
And more interesting is, the stored procedures and table triggers that are
available in access 2010 now make the trip up to and run on office 365
intact. ACE now has table triggers and store procedures at the engine level.
And MOST interesting is these triggers and code now go up into the cloud.
Once again, just like your lack of knowledge as to the state of affairs in
terms of the access database engine used, I also suspect you not up to date
in regards to the features and what access is all about.
Nothing that encourages me to use it in any project. And yes, I can
give references to any of my statements
I'm not here to encourage you to use any product, but I do want some honesty
and integrity from you, and that's what you've been lacking here.
