Discussion - Append / Update logic in reverse.

[Darrylles]

Hiya,

Can anyone justify Microsoft reversing the logic for these query types?

I'm absolutely gobsmacked that they carry on with the same 'reverse logic' with 2 relatively similar query types, over many years and numerous releases.

e.g. You create an 'update' query and you essentially have a 'FIELD' that you want changing, and you have an 'UPDATE TO' which is the field that you want the data FROM. (i.e. update FIELD to the value in the 'UPDATE TO' field).

With an append query, you have a 'FIELD' that you want the data FROM and an 'APPEND TO' which you want the data adding.
(i.e. append to 'APPEND TO' field from the FIELD value).

This is absolutely ridiculous and atrocious.

It's no wonder that Access has a 'poor-man' reputation.

This is like saying on Update:

Replace the contents of a bowl.

And on Append...

Place a new bowl in the contents.
(Instead of 'Place new contents in a bowl).

I know you guys (Steve01, Littlesmudge etc) have this imprinted in your minds, but just imagine the newbies (like me) we don't stand a chance with this kind of bu#@sh~[it!!!

(I had to camouflage the word 'cos Tek-Tips has a good swear word interceptor!).

Seriously, why does Microsoft continue to incorporate 'logical' errors like this? Cost or keeping past users happy?

I think that 'cut-your-losses' is by far the best - there will be far more newbies in the future than experts from the past, (and Access will SEEM more professional without this stupid logic).

After saying all this, Steve01 and Littlesmudge will no-doubt kick-in with logical and meaningful reasons for the above which'll make me look an idiot - if so, I'm straining to hear 'em.

Regards,

Darrylle
(This MUST have been floored before, if so, where?)


"Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level - then beat you with experience."

 

[Steve101]

Hi Darrylle,

I must say I enjoyed your last post; in particular the references you make to myself and littlesmudge; had'nt quite realised I'd gained any 'notoriety' on this site. Is this good or bad :-D

Well relating to your points, I really had'nt noticed any particular inconsistencies in the syntax; I just use them when I need to, without any deep thought going into the syntax. Most of the time I compose them graphically; then cut and paste the SQL as required; I hav'nt got much of a memory for the syntax anyway.

I will look at the syntax now more carefully, and try to understand what you're saying in 'slower time' (watch this space).

But I do know what you are talking about. Old war story coming up. Did you know that pre Windows, and pre DOS there was an operating system called CPM. Its command line syntax for copying files was:

Copy DestinationFileName SourceFileName

Along came DOS, with the syntax to copy a file being:

Copy SourceFileName DestinationFileName

About that time, I sort of gave up on the concept of idealism. Who knows how and why these things evolve; sometimes with good reason; sometimes without.

Anyway mate, thats my 2c worth on the subject (with possibly more to come later when I've had a meal and 'researched' the material a bit more.

All the best, and remember that we're all here to learn from each other,

Cheers,

Steve Lewy
Solutions Developer
steve@lewycomputing.com.au