RealBasic for an Access Front End?

[Dave]

I work at a small private company that has been using VB 6.0 as a
front end for Access databases for 8 years. It looks as though we
will be migrating to Vista in the not-too-distant future. My hope is
to move to RealBasic at that point. Does anyone know about RB
connecting to Access tables via ADO? I was reading some archived RB
posts and someone wrote that RB doesn't connect to Access. That was
from a 2004 post. Is that (still) correct? Seems kind of strange
for a company that is marketing itself as the answer to the VB6 or
VB.NET upgrade question.

Your insight will be appreciated.

Dave

[Tom van Stiphout]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:00:06 -0700, Dave <da*****@msn.comwrote:

What did the company behind RealBasic say when you asked them?
-Tom.

>I work at a small private company that has been using VB 6.0 as a
front end for Access databases for 8 years. It looks as though we
will be migrating to Vista in the not-too-distant future. My hope is
to move to RealBasic at that point. Does anyone know about RB
connecting to Access tables via ADO? I was reading some archived RB
posts and someone wrote that RB doesn't connect to Access. That was
from a 2004 post. Is that (still) correct? Seems kind of strange
for a company that is marketing itself as the answer to the VB6 or
VB.NET upgrade question.

Your insight will be appreciated.

Dave

['69 Camaro]

Hello, Dave Matney.

It looks as though we
will be migrating to Vista in the not-too-distant future. My hope is
to move to RealBasic at that point.

Double migrations are generally more time-consuming to troubleshoot than two
separate migrations if you aren't already somewhat familiar with either of
the new products.

Does anyone know about RB
connecting to Access tables via ADO?

Access tables? Wow! You changed your mind about switching to MySQL as the
back end for your million dollar software application in a mighty big hurry.
May I ask why?

http://blogs.msdn.com/access/archive...e.aspx#4426072

I was reading some archived RB
posts and someone wrote that RB doesn't connect to Access. That was
from a 2004 post. Is that (still) correct?

You must purchase the $500 professional version, since the standard version
doesn't accommodate database connectivity -- by design. Please see the
following Web page for more information:

http://forums.realsoftware.com/viewtopic.php?t=11375

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blogs: www.DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com, www.DatabaseTips.BlogSpot.com
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.

[Dave]

Could you possibly be mixing me up with another Dave?

Thanks for your help and links.

Dave P.

Does anyone know about RB
connecting to Access tables via ADO?

Access tables? Wow! You changed your mind about switching to MySQL as the
back end for your million dollar software application in a mighty big hurry.
May I ask why?

['69 Camaro]

Hi, Dave.

Could you possibly be mixing me up with another Dave?

If I am, then the other Dave has been fairly outspoken about the Access
development team's shortcomings in the past few days, but he hasn't
investigated much yet about how he's going to carry out his threat to
migrate away from Access.

Thanks for your help and links.

You're welcome.

Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blogs: www.DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com, www.DatabaseTips.BlogSpot.com
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.

[Larry Linson]

Dave,

When people say "Access databases" as a back end, they almost always mean
"Jet databases". Most of us with experience with both classic VB and Access
have found that for "front ends" intended for individual users, and
modest-sized workgroups, Access is better than classic VB, in terms of time
and effort required to create the same front end, the UI is as friendly, and
performance is limited by the data retrieval not the front-end, in both
cases.

REALBasic, from what I hear, is a good product, but it is not an
event-driven, code-snippet environment like classic VB and Access.

I am wondering why you aren't considering Access as the front-end.

And, given that DAO is the native language of the Jet DB engine, why you
would want to use ADO? ADO was strongly over-hyped by Microsoft, but was
never "better" for Jet. ADO has, as I'm sure you know, been superceded in
Microsoft's own view of "real professional software development" by ADO.NET
which is built on a different object model and shares little with "classic"
ADO except part of its name.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP (and Classic VB developer)

[Sascha Trowitzsch]

Hi Larry,

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.notschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:7rOyi.5448$ze.2072@trnddc07...

Dave,
...
And, given that DAO is the native language of the Jet DB engine, why you would
want to use ADO? ADO was strongly over-hyped by Microsoft, but was never
"better" for Jet. ADO has, as I'm sure you know, been superceded in
Microsoft's own view of "real professional software development" by ADO.NET
which is built on a different object model and shares little with "classic"
ADO except part of its name.

To use DAO in VB6 applications is pretty impossible as all data aware components
like grids (VB-Datagrid, HFlexgrid, Datacombo and third party OCX - except
Janusgrid) need ADO-Recordsets.
But you are right in suggesting Access for frontends.

Ciao, Sascha

[Dave]

Larry,

Thanks for the interesting response.

To answer your question re. using Access as a front end, since
programming in Access is dependent upon VBA....MSFT - fool me once
shame on you....fool me twice - No (expletive) way!

I can't migrate away from their OS (I would if I were 25 years
younger) but I can migrate away from their programming tools.

Dave


On Aug 21, 10:53 pm, "Larry Linson" <[e-mail]:

Dave,

When people say "Access databases" as a back end, they almost always mean
"Jet databases". Most of us with experience with both classic VB and Access
have found that for "front ends" intended for individual users, and
modest-sized workgroups, Access is better than classic VB, in terms of time
and effort required to create the same front end, the UI is as friendly, and
performance is limited by the data retrieval not the front-end, in both
cases.

REALBasic, from what I hear, is a good product, but it is not an
event-driven, code-snippet environment like classic VB and Access.

I am wondering why you aren't considering Access as the front-end.

And, given that DAO is the native language of the Jet DB engine, why you
would want to use ADO? ADO was strongly over-hyped by Microsoft, but was
never "better" for Jet. ADO has, as I'm sure you know, been superceded in
Microsoft's own view of "real professional software development" by ADO.NET
which is built on a different object model and shares little with "classic"
ADO except part of its name.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP (and Classic VB developer)

[Larry Linson]

"Dave" <da*****@msn.comwrote

Thanks for the interesting response.

I'm glad you found it interesting.

To answer your question re. using Access as a front end, since
programming in Access is dependent upon VBA....MSFT -
fool me once shame on you....fool me twice - No (expletive) way!

I am sure you are justly concerned about the future of VBA. My view is that
it is going to be supported for some time yet, though I am considering what
the alternatives might be. I have no great fondness for VB.NET or C#. And,
Access 2003 is a pretty good development tool that should work for even
longer than its support period, unless a future OS release breaks it.

With the emphasis on ACCDBs (direct descendant of MDB and Jet) in Access
2007, I think that Microsoft got the message that not everybody's going to
go for a server DB backend -- as it once it appeared. Access 2007, though,
has not, in fact, abandoned MDB and Jet; those are still an option. But I'd
be less concerned about the longevity of MDBs or MDB-like Access databases.

I just don't see a "direct replacement" for Access with the event-driven
model. At best, I'd guess you will need a front end and a separate DB
engine. The various third-party BASIC products, including REALBasic, are
viable candidates for those with a background in BASIC. I've used many
computer languages in the last 50 years, but BASIC in various forms from
mainframe to micro has always seemed straightforward and much more capable
than many gave it credit for being) At perhaps a slight increase in
development time and effort, you could even go with an open-source DB such
as MySQL or PostgreSQL.

When, in my final fling as a "mainframer", I supported a mainframe decsision
support software product that was much like a PC database with development
capability, I did some interesting PC work in DOS to let the users work
off-line and then upload to the mainframe product, using Borland's Turbo
Basic . Borland dropped it, it became Spectra Basic, and then evolved to
PowerBASIC. I haven't used it since the Turbo Basic days, but it still has
a loyal following and has been enhanced for Windows.

Good luck.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

[Dave]

On Aug 22, 1:30 pm, "Larry Linson" <[e-mail]:

"Dave" <[e-mail]

I am sure you are justly concerned about the future of VBA. My view is that
it is going to be supported for some time yet, though I am considering what
the alternatives might be. I have no great fondness for VB.NET or C#. And,
Access 2003 is a pretty good development tool that should work for even
longer than its support period, unless a future OS release breaks it.

My thoughts exactly toward VB.NET and C#. All it took was a class
in .NET to realize my needs will never justify this bloatware. I work
at a small
company and hope to 'til retirement...I am tired of taking classes to
stay on the "cutting edge" of proprietary software when existing tools
are doing a great job.
I would probably early retire and tell the boss he needs not only a
new platform
*and* a new programmer (new as in literally) and let them move ahead
with
a well schooled .NET guy. I would do that before I would take them
any further forward with VB6-Access if I think it not in their best
interest, which is the way I am moving.

I also find your ideas in the two paragraphs below as interesting and
viable alternatives for our hybrid info system. You and the rest here
are helping me a lot.

Thanks again,

Dave

PS: Even if I *do* retire early, I will always remember this group as
a great source
for friendly help for this self-taught programmer (I just have a
business degree!)

With the emphasis on ACCDBs (direct descendant of MDB and Jet) in Access
2007, I think that Microsoft got the message that not everybody's going to
go for a server DB backend -- as it once it appeared. Access 2007, though,
has not, in fact, abandoned MDB and Jet; those are still an option. But I'd
be less concerned about the longevity of MDBs or MDB-like Access databases.

I just don't see a "direct replacement" for Access with the event-driven
model. At best, I'd guess you will need a front end and a separate DB
engine. The various third-party BASIC products, including REALBasic, are
viable candidates for those with a background in BASIC. I've used many
computer languages in the last 50 years, but BASIC in various forms from
mainframe to micro has always seemed straightforward and much more capable
than many gave it credit for being) At perhaps a slight increase in
development time and effort, you could even go with an open-source DB such
as MySQL or PostgreSQL.

When, in my final fling as a "mainframer", I supported a mainframe decsision
support software product that was much like a PC database with development
capability, I did some interesting PC work in DOS to let the users work
off-line and then upload to the mainframe product, using Borland's Turbo
Basic . Borland dropped it, it became Spectra Basic, and then evolved to
PowerBASIC. I haven't used it since the Turbo Basic days, but it still has
a loyal following and has been enhanced for Windows.

Good luck.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

[Larry Linson]

"Dave" <da*****@msn.comwrote

PS: Even if I *do* retire early, I will always remember
this group as a great source for friendly help for this
self-taught programmer (I just have a business degree!)

Many of us, at best, can only claim to be "semi-retired." When a "bluebird
lands on our shoulder," it's hard to convince ourselves we should "shoo it
away." <CHUCKLE>

[David W. Fenton]

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.notwrote in
news:3h%yi.15495$4K6.9988@trnddc02:

With the emphasis on ACCDBs (direct descendant of MDB and Jet) in
Access 2007, I think that Microsoft got the message that not
everybody's going to go for a server DB backend -- as it once it
appeared. Access 2007, though, has not, in fact, abandoned MDB
and Jet; those are still an option. But I'd be less concerned
about the longevity of MDBs or MDB-like Access databases.

You'd think that, but there are some things going on that tell you
they don't take Access/Jet seriously.

1. dropping ULS in the new format and replacing it with a database
password.

2. dropping replication in the new format in favor of SharePoint.

3. dropping support for heterogeneous replication between Jet and
SQL Server with SQL Server 2005.

Sense a pattern there?

I certainly do, and it's that Jet is for desktop applications, and
as soon as you need a server or security or multiple locations, then
you should use one of MS's other server products. That is, if you
need security and the db password isn't good enough, or you need
replication and SharePoint isn't good enough, you have to switch to
SQL Server 2005.

So, they are doing the same thing, pushing their server products,
but instead of just denigrating.depracating Jet as they did starting
with Access 2000, they are removing the functionality from the new
data format so that you're forced to use SQL Server.

At least, that's the way it looks to me.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

Dave <da*****@msn.comwrote in
news:11**********************@i13g2000prf.googlegr oups.com:

before I would take them
any further forward with VB6-Access

I think you show a surprising degree of ignorance when you use
"Access" in this context. YOU ARE NOT USING ACCESS. You are only
usingn Jet. You may use Access to create your MDBs, but that's the
end of Access's involvement in your application.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Dave]

On Aug 22, 6:46 pm, "David W. Fenton" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

Dave <[e-mail] innews:11**********************@i13g2000prf.google groups.com:

before I would take them
any further forward with VB6-Access

I think you show a surprising degree of ignorance when you use
"Access" in this context.

Never claimed to be a highly experienced code jockey, just feeding my
family.