|
Maximilien wrote: Old misogynistic bugger feeling intellectually and professionally challenged by a younger (I assume) women starts bullying her.
Description says that she was in a training class. Not an architecture meeting tasked with mapping out the future of the company.
And given it was a training class for MS Access I can only wonder what the intent of instructor and student was. As a student, I wouldn't suppose that myself I would actually need training on MS Access. It would be nice to be introduced to the layout but I most definitely would not be challenging the structure on the first day.
And I have been working with databases for more than 30 years.
Conversely as an instructor either the students are expected to have no knowledge or they are experienced professionals. With no knowledge then they should do nothing but learn. As experienced professionals they should already understand the nature of legacy applications and the intent of an introductory session. Neither of those types of students should be challenging the architecture.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: With no knowledge then they should do nothing but learn. As experienced professionals they should already understand the nature of legacy applications and the intent of an introductory session. Neither of those types of students should be challenging the architecture.
At least not until you are in enough time to understand the legacies, frames, history and have already built a name in the company.
I have re-built things a couple of times in projects that were going bad and ended faster than trying to fix the previous mess.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I started off application development with Access 2000 databases... badly...
I wrote some horrors in VBA that fortunately are no longer roaming the earth, as the company was folded(not due to my VBA I hasten to add).
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure the general consensus here will be that Access is evil and should be avoided at all costs. I'll go against the grain here and just say that Access is simply another RDBMS that works perfectly well for small single user applications.
It may be old tech, but it works. 
edit: I'm referring mostly to using Access as a database only, not for creating applications...I hate VBA as much as the rest of you! 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
modified 6-Oct-17 9:09am.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you - I think Access is fine when used by experienced DBAs and experienced developers.
The problems arise when because of it's apparent ease of setup and use - inexperienced people start creating poorly designed databases with lots of VBA and other horrors that I did with Access databases.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: lots of VBA and other horrors that I did with Access databases
I know exactly how you feel. We all have to get started somewhere and Access is that place for me as well. It's a good thing that I did not dwell there for too long. An experienced DBA took me under their wing to teach me all about SQL Server. They were a good teacher and one of the last few people to earn their SQL Server Master's Certification before Microsoft discontinued the program. That being said, I still cringe when people bring up Access. VBA isn't bad, per se, but you shouldn't be building applications with it.
Still, after leaning VBA, taking the next step to VB.Net was pretty simple. From there, I was able to draw on a lot of dabbling in C++ to make the leap to C#. Now I build entire applications from front to back on Windows and the Web. I guess you could consider me a multi-stack developer now
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: I'll go against the grain here and just say that Access is simply another RDBMS that works perfectly well for small single user applications.
Exactly.
kmoorevs wrote: It may be old tech, but it works
Rather certain Oracle is older.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm an old guy and I'd be pissed if some newbie came in and started telling me how to do my job by fixing something that's not broken! I'd be even more pissed if they wasted my time by showing me examples!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
I can't disagree much. You don't show up at a new job and immediately start telling people they should redo everything using something you prefer, no matter what the pros and cons might be.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: You don't show up at a new job and immediately start telling people they should redo everything using something you prefer, no matter what the pros and cons might be.
To be fair those that are ignorant and inexperienced might do that.
|
|
|
|
|
So is this what happened here?
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: I'm an old guy
Not as old as this guy[^].
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
He has a point TBH. You can't "migrate" a col\row based database like Access to an hierarchical one like Mongo. Also it's not just the DB but the things that use it....they will need rewritten and retested. Also anyone who says Mongo is easier to maintain than Access would probably get fired on the spot if I had my way. And Mongo more secure? Didn't a whole bunch of companies get their data hacked because Mongo's default security is "off" so anyone can trawl the net for open ports and get what they want?
This sounds like fresh-out-of-uni idealism. You have to respect that in the real world we do have ties to old systems and things are done a certain way for a reason, and it's unlikely you'll appreciate that if it's your first day on the job.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: a col\row based database like Access to an hierarchical one like Mongo
Are you suggesting that Access is not a hierarchical db? 
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why? You can create relationships between tables in Access.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Relationships don't make something hierarchical. In Access if you have Order and OrderItem they are two different tables and if you want the Order you do a look-up on Order and if you want the OrderItem you do another lookup using OrderID as a where filter. They are separate buckets of info. With Mongo the data is stored in a hierarchal manner. So once you find the Order, that order has a collection of OrderItems directly inside it.
|
|
|
|
|
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess she was told it was a dot net SQL environment they were working in?
|
|
|
|
|
Tell her we all said, "Welcome to the real world."
She needs to just observe and learn the culture for a while before telling the existing employees that they are doing everything "wrong".
I still have to delve into Delphi 6 (circa 2000) code that uses Paradox as the database for crying out loud.
|
|
|
|
|
since when do employers really listen to their employees, particularly a newbie vs. some old coot that's been there way too long (and worse still may be a friend of the boss / director.)
wait a while till the boss knows you're both human doing OK at your job, once that traction achieved suggest they need to review/upgrade before their tech doesn't fit the real word (interface etc.) Suggest they retain consultants to do a full review because they are at risk of loosing a lot of business if they don't upgrade to match their supply/sales chains.
sometimes they really do have to pay to accept the truth, whereas if it's just you saying it even 10 years on the old coot's still always going to have the upper hand. (unless sleeping with the boss - but no, don't do that: it never ends well.)
Format Success.
Welcome to your new signa&*(gD@@@ ![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif) @@@@@@*@x@@
|
|
|
|
|
Lopatir wrote: Suggest they retain consultants to do a full review because they are at risk of loosing a lot of business if they don't upgrade to match their supply/sales chains.
Excluding those where the the sale involved a product and the customer wanted a specific database, I have never seen any customer care what database the company was using.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that to point I agree. Devs tend to always come off as treating people like they are stupid. So maybe it was the way she did it. Who knows, we weren't there. But you have a good point.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
MarkTJohnson wrote: She needs to just observe and learn the culture for a while before telling the existing employees that they are doing everything "wrong".
My reaction as well. Your second day is not the one to argue with the coxswain over the type of oars. Just get in the damned boat and row!
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
And to sum up this thread  and a note to all you young whippersnappers, may you be blessed by your energy and idealism:
If you are good, learn some things, and don't do anything exceptionally stupid, you may one day be "that old coot".
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
