Pete,

First (I don't know if this has been fixed in 6.0), but in 5.0 - trying to join more than a couple tables freaked the thing out. I have views up to 7 or 8 joins with two or three updatable tables - view designer simply died.

Secondarily - and more generally - I will almost always go with a code created object (in the loose sense of the word) rather than a "visual" one for anything that is not visual in nature (like a form). All my database building, table building, view building, etc. etc .etc. is done in code. This is because:

1) I have ULTIMATE CONTROL.
2) It forces me to actually understand what is going on
3) I can do it QUICKER - yes, I said QUICKER with my boilerplate code than I could "visually"
4) I hate the code GENDBC put's out - I like my own "style" of coding, commenting, etc.

also - back to views specifically ..

5) Just try doing a view like 'Select * from foo where &lcWhere" in the view designer, And I have tons of views like this.

Now - to the real question ...

Does this make you a "bad" programmer! Aha! My point is made! No - of course not! You just have a different WAY of accomplishing the same thing. Would it make me "bad" if I were to tell you that I don't know where GENDBC even is? I'd have to look for it and 'figure it out" to run it. (been awhile). Now - if you took a test that was heavy on manually coding a view, wouldn't you feel a little side-swiped? I would if I were tested on specifics of GENDBC!

Wouldn't the best "Test" question be something more along the lines of "Create a working, updatable, parameterized view that joins the customer and invoice tables and do it in under three minutes"

The RESULT is what counts, not the methodollagy.

Ken



>Ken,
>What's wrong with the view designer?, and why do you want to code all those DBSetProp()s manually, I use the view designer, then run Gendbc to generate the code - does this make me a bad programmer?
>
>Regards
>
>Pete Kane
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Just a little Monday philosphy ...
>>
>>Have you ever noticed how one person will know a lot about one aspect of VFP and another a lot about some other aspect? This is, of course, a natural by-product of the way we learn, the work we do, the projects we have done, etc. etc. etc. Also, since there is "more than one way to skin a cat", we often find that method "A" works fine for us, so we never even bother to learn about methods b, c, d, etc.
>>
>>I always find it intersting to see how other developers work. I remember the first time I saw someone do a quick look at a subset of records by using the table, setting a filter, and then browsing. Me? I always do a "browse for" - seems quicker. I would have never in a million years taken the "filter" approach to that simple task. While this example is not the particular point I'm talking about, It is just curious how we each work our own way and become "skilled" in those ways, often with the side-result of becoming ignorant in other ways.
>>
>>I wonder how this plays in certifications, employment evaluations, etc. ? As an example, In my framework - and in all serious work I have done, I have NEVER used a "Do FORM" anywhere. I always instantiate form classes. My framework is set up to work this way. As a result, I know almost nothing about the VFP Data Environment object - I have my own "DE" object - again, as part of my framework.
>>
>>Now - I wonder what a potential employer might think about me claiming to be an "expert" in VFP, and yet, not knowing much of anything (or at least having no experience) with "Do FORM" and the data environment? How influenced would they be by the way they work?
>>
>>On the flip side, I have worked a ton with Local Views, and while by now - most people have, I would be very hard pressed to believe that somebody "really knew VFP" if they couldn't build views, from code, just as fast and thoroughly as I do! If I saw somebody open the view designer, I'd almost automatically write them off as Jr Programmer material at best. So - does that make me a "methodollagy" snob too? I think it probably does.
>>
>>this gets an extra dimension when talking certification. It seems to me that the problem with certifications in general are:
>>1) they test methodollagy as much as results - If I can doe it just as good and fast with Method "A" and they test on method "B" - I'm sunk!
>>2) as with all standardized tests - they are as much about ability to take tests as they are about the material itself
>>3) they focus (at least ones I've seen) on memorization more than real world problem solving ability
>>4) and most importantly - they fail to measure what I consider to be the greatest skills of all - the abilities to GET ANSWERS QUICKLY WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THEM and TO LEARN RAPIDLY ON THE FLY
>>
>>no special beef hear, no sour grapes, don't even know why I thought of this just now .... just curious if anyone has any thoughts on any of this.
>>
>>Thanks!