Dear Aaron:
Much of what you say rings very true to me. Of course, QA is not in Access.
Not that I could live without it. And, as a tool, my opinion is that it
beats everything else I've seen. But then, I live in QA for days at a time.
It is not length of development that is the issue, I expect. It is the
"learning curve" for novices to become SQL Server DBAs, or the budget of
small companies to be able to afford one. So many Access applications are
written by John in the receiving departnemt, or Mary in accounting. There
can be considerable utility in that, and there can be disaster. Those of us
who try to support them in the NGs try to turn some of the failure into
success. Sometimes John or Mary go on to become adept, even expert, and a
few will become SQL DBAs and surpass us all. Others may be able to stop
pulling on their hair and get a good night's sleep. But, you cannot push
novices into ADPs and database administration (which so often means being a
senior database architect, rather than the guy who knows how to create and
run a backup script).
Your closing remark is mostly true, but not entirely. For what you do, and
for nearly all of what I do, it is better, and in all cases, more powerful.
But for a large number of people, it is not something they can handle, or
which they need or can justify. So, let them start up from something less
powerful, because it is simplified. It is not superior "in the long run"
but many of those are not in it for the long run. For them, the short run
is as far as they're going. Indeed, I expect this is the majority. They're
not going to become DBAs. They're not going to hire one.
That's my $0.02. I'll send you a bill if you send me your address.
Tom Ellison