Hello, Daniel.

I think we are finally agreeing in our disagreement. 8-)

>> What do I have when someone ask me for help about this topic?
>
>Please answer what you believe is right and state your reasons behind this
>belief. Someone may pick up the opposite side and, if so, the original poster
>needs to evaluate both sides of the argument before making a decision. If the
>original poster evaluates a response before using it, I have accomplished my
>primary goal.

I answered your previous post (before reading this) in much the same words, so we think the same about that. I tend to explain a lot of things beyond the original question (at the risk of sounding obvious), maybe because I got accustomed in my days as instructor. I did for many years (many years ago < g >).

Anyway, I couldn't pretend other people to do the same. I know that we are not a support service, and one of the best things in UT (as in many forums, but best here) is that in most cases any question has a lot of answers, so different views are always exposed.

>The fact that I very strongly disagree with you on this issue should never stop
>you to answer what you believe is correct. There would be no point for me to
>be on UT if no one was writing stuff that I don't know anything about or don't
>agree with. I answer a lot more questions than I ask but it certainly does not
>imply that I am not learning something every day.

Agree 109%

>You are right in assuming that most of the applications I work on are not what
>you would call traditional business applications. For example, I have designed
>system to
>
>(1) measure real-time quality control of a production line.
>(2) decode weak signals (with lots of white noise).
>(3) simulate catastrophic events and other historic events.
>(4) measure the long-term effect of hiring/firing/offering severance packages
>to employees on the salary mass.
>(5) control access to individual cells in high security jails.
>(6) control the actions of a robot.
>(7) maximize yield of functions that has several non-linear constraints.
>(8) determine the danger level of an hazardous environment.

Ok. Such a different background can lead to differently value what's important. Anyway, I tend to follow my experience to answer here at UT because most of the people are doing business or database applications, and of course, I don't take it for granted, I don't give very specific ideas if I don't know details about the problem.

>My experience tells me that sometimes, not always, natural keys are a Good
>Thing < bg >. Your experience seems to be restricted to traditional business
>applications and tells you otherwise. I assume that there are other developers
>out there that are wworking on applications in which the judicious use of
>natural keys can have advantages.

I don't know if it is restricted. Indeed, I wrote many kinds of applications and maybe the only thing all of them had in common (or perhaps its just me), is that the possibility of change, evolution or extension was always there.

>You were burned by intelligent (natural?) and composite keys and they left a
>bad taste in your mouth. Your experience tells you, and I agree, that blind
>use of intelligent and composite keys are a Bad Thing. However, I do agree
>that natual keys do not have their place.

It's just that in most cases, you don't start developing with a great knowledge about methodologies, and even more, ussually you start coding over someone else's designs and implementations.

>Please note that I use surrogate and natural keys only, not intelligent keys.
>See my other reply to you for my understanding of these terms.

I got it.

See you!