Alpha Five compared to Access

[Steven Spencer]

RE: Alpha Five compared to Access

Cal
....I think the A5 version of Access's "Unique" index is to set the Validation field rule for the field to "Value of field must be unique".

Steven
Yes, this is the "workaround" method, and when you hang out on this forum, you find out that it means the following..

a) You must define the field rules in every set that
allows update to the table, as well as the table itself..

b) You should define the same rule for each field (2,3,4)
that makes up the composite key, because of the
possibility of data entry not going in "order".

c) Child table field rules have in some cases caused
anomalies in entering parent table data.. triggering
where they shouldn't (is that all fixed now ?, I am not
sure).. there is even another possible issue of
triggering involving fields that can be blank/zeros

Clearly nowhere near as simple, clear and elegant than OS or language-level unique keys... not really close..

Cal
If you want a uniqueness test that is more complex, you can even define "Value of expression must be unique" which allows you to combine the values in two or more fields for the uniqueness test.

Steven
Agreed.. this is a nice powerful feature..(and it may be much better than the competitor's equivalent, I dunno)
Would be nice to also see it implelmented at the language/table level, along with true unique keys.

Cal
The only purpose I can think of right now for a unique index in A5 is to use it for a lookup.

Steven
Primary keys are the basic "key" to data integrity, and on active data they are almost invariably unique indexes, Anything that can compromise the integrity of unique indexes must be watched for very carefully. Of course if you embrace the workaround method, then the proper, elegant method lacks purpose :-)

Jermay
OR, you could create a unique index so each city would only be listed once - much easier.

Steven
That is not the definition of a unique index, it is a (programming or languge) "summary field" type of function and should be defined as such.. a very limited function best handled in report or browse level.. calling it a unique index is, as Jeremey essentially pointed out, kicking against the goads of accepted database terminology, and clearly able to cause developers a lot of grief unless they sleep by this forum :-) when the "duplicate key" data slips through their "unique index" unknowlingly and invisibly...

I know what I am saying here sounds a little harsh, and at first I was gonna largely accept your view, but the more I thought of it, the more I realized that missing true unique indexes (and labeling something unique that is not) is not something that should be sluffed off, either in comparisions, or in requests to Alpha for future enhancement...

Shalom,
Steven

[Tom Cone Jr]

RE: Alpha Five compared to Access

Cal, I agree with you. Here's my half cent contribution to this thread.

I've been working with dBase files for a long time. The Alpha Five implementation is consistent with how its predecessors, from a variety of different publishers, did it.

I can understand why folks coming to Alpha Five from non dBase backgrounds might have trouble understanding that occasionally terms that resemble what they're personally used to now mean different things here. To me this is part of the problem each of us faces when we move to a new development tool.

I do not agree however that differences in terminology are a valid basis for drawing conclusions about the integrity of the database engine, or the data which it is managing.

-- tom

[Tom Cone Jr]

RE: Alpha Five compared to Access

Steven said:

>> You must define the field rules in every set that
allows update to the table, as well as the table itself

I do not think this is accurate. Are you saying that field rules defined for a table are disregarded if the table is linked to othes in a set? If you have an example of this Alpha Software will be anxious to see it, I'm sure.

-- tom

[russ Boehle]

RE: Alpha Five compared to Access

I stand corrected on "unique". It does not work this way in A4, which won't allow duplicates if the index is set to unique. This does seem like a problem with A5. Perhaps there is an easy fix for this that Selwyn can implement in a patch?

Russ

[Jeremy Spurling]

RE: Alpha Five compared to Access



Tom Cone Jr wrote:
-------------------
I do not agree however that differences in terminology are a valid basis for drawing conclusions about the integrity of the database engine, or the data which it is managing.



Tom,
I agree with this statement 100%. But I do feel that it supports my initial thread message on the cautions of comparing two very different database tools. When not only terminology is different in meaning but more importantly, the over-all functional design of each tool is different, it becomes very difficult to truly compare them. I guess my overall feeling is that I would rather not see the two compared. I don't believe that Mr. Rabins and Alpha Software would be able to honestly prove that one is better than the other.

I don't feel that taking on this comparison is going to further Alpha5 in the market place. It will only become a "political" contest with all the mudd-slinging. I would rather see Mr. Rabbins and the Alpha Software team promote the software for what it is and what it does and not how it is different. I believe that as long as you show it's strong capabilities, the users will decide for themselves what they feel is better for them.

Well, Mr. Rabins asked for some opinions and that is mine. I don't have any marketing experience, so take what I said for what it is worth. I know how I feel about each tool that I use, because I used them and made the decision myself. I believe that is the only way for one to truly be able to make a clear decision. Try them both and choose the one that you feel will meet your needs and that you feel comfortable with.

I wish only the best to Alpha Software and will continue to support Alpha5 as well as Access.

- Jeremy Spurling -

[Ray Fernandez]

RE: Alpha Five compared to Access

Russ,

>>It does not work this way in A4.

YES, it does!

Both A4 and A5 use dbase as there backend. It has nothing to do with Alpha 4 or Alpha 5. There is and never will be a patch for this. This is the way Dbase works and will always work.

If you want to have TRUE KEY FIELDS, then you need to stop using a dbase backend format.

When version 6 comes out and they get ADO to work, then pick another backend table format, like access or paradox or sql, they use TRUE KEYS.

Again, this is no big thing here if you're a good programmer.

RF-ARS-Motorola

[russ Boehle]

RE: Alpha Five compared to Access

B'golly you're right. I have been assuming it worked differently all this time. Live and learn.

Russ

[Marc King - A5solutions]

For what its worth

Richard, I have experience marketing software systems for L3, CopperCom,and BluePumpkin.

Having used Access in a business environment (customer data collection and distribution) and as a prototype development tool (Product Lifcycle Automation) I have an observation I would like to share.

For myself the foremost difference between Alpha and Access is clearly - ease of use - as the marketing team has quite rightly identified. You can get far deeper into advanced applications with no code than you could ever hope to in Access.

However I also believe that the release of version 5 was such a dramatic improvement that the marketing messaging is now in need of an equal upgrade. With such a strong product and equally excellent customer service perhaps its time to shed the small business image and improve your content, messaging, and presentation of your product and services.

Your current focus on the developer community is commendable and these services need not be diminished. They will not be left behind if your messaging is now improved to better target the corporate decision makers who bring these tools into the business community (a far larger market). These players are driven by only two factors: Saving Time and Money. Both of which are Alpha strengths. If you hope to diferentiate between yourself and the competition in "my oppinion" this site is in need of some critical review.

[Jeremy Spurling]

RE: For what its worth

Marc,

I am leaning more to the opposing side of your post. I believe that Alpha Software should stick with it's focus on the developer community. They are already represented in the "corporate" world through the customized applications that the developer's have created. I just don't ever see a company like a Wallmart or a Meijer's or even something smaller like my local newspaper company, The Toledo Blade, would be able to utilize Alpha5. It just doesn't have the true client/server properties that SQL or ORACLE offer. I don't want to seem like I am under-estimating Alpha5, but I think that it's potential in the "Corporate" market is going to limited, just like Access is. So, when you talk about going after the real decision makers in the corporate world, you are talking about CIO and VP of IS departments. These people will always have the "global" vision and once again I don't believe that Alpha5 would be able to meet those.

Realize that I am totally speaking as a "lay-person" and not a corporate decision maker. I think that Alpha5 needs to build a support flow of developers that will be able to bring Alpha5 into the bigger markets from the inside out. Does that make sense? Go after the people that are actually going to use it and work with it. Then, those that make the big decisions will be better influenced by their employees who have experienced it's vast capabilities. At least that's how I would market it. Once again I only speak from my gut and through any extensive experience.

I believe that Alpha5 is only in it's infancy and has a world of growth ahead of it. As I have stated before, it has my support. It just needs to keep itself realistic with where and how it wants to grow. I wish the best to the Alpha Software team as the continue to journey on.

- Jeremy Spurling -

[Jeremy Spurling]

RE: For what its worth

Marc,

I am leaning more to the opposing side of your post. I believe that Alpha Software should stick with it's focus on the developer community. They are already represented in the "corporate" world through the customized applications that the developer's have created. I just don't ever see a company like a Wallmart or a Meijer's or even something smaller like my local newspaper company, The Toledo Blade, being able nor willing to use Alpha5. It just doesn't have the true client/server properties that SQL or ORACLE offer. I don't want to seem like I am under-estimating Alpha5, but I think that it's potential in the "Corporate" market is going to be limited, just like Access is. So, when you talk about going after the real decision makers in the corporate world, you are talking about CIO and VP of IS departments. These people will always have the "global" vision and once again I don't believe that Alpha5 would be able to meet those.

Realize that I am totally speaking as a "lay-person" and not a corporate decision maker. I think that Alpha5 needs to build a support flow of developers that will be able to bring Alpha5 into the bigger markets from the inside out. Does that make sense? Go after the people that are actually going to use it and work with it. Then, those that make the big decisions will be better influenced by their employees who have experienced it's vast capabilities. At least that's how I would market it. Once again I only speak from my gut and NOT through any extensive experience.

I believe that Alpha5 is only in it's infancy and has a world of growth ahead of it. As I have stated before, it has my support. It just needs to keep itself realistic with where and how it wants to grow. I wish the best to the Alpha Software team as the continue to journey on.

- Jeremy Spurling -

[Jeremy Spurling]

RE: For what its worth

oops! I apologize for the double post!

- Jeremy -

[Marc King - A5solutions]

RE: For what its worth

Jeremy, All that is true and I'm not suggesting that Alpha lose its focus on the developer community. But you need to understand that the corporate world is comprised of far more teams and workgroups requiring custom solutions than it needs of enterprise level apps. Filemaker long ago adopted the "Corporate workgroup solution" moniker and has grown substantialy as a result. Access has just piggy backed on MS Office.

Alpha's developer focus is a tremendous asset and should be preserved - The point is that from a messaging standpoint when an IT manager or director needs to justify budget for a internal workgroup solution development tool, Show management how Alpha saves time and money and you have a sale. All the developer jargon in the world is not going to make the IT directors case or educate management. Alpha simply has no content to drive that equation.

I'm not saying destroy, just improve.

[John Guy]

RE: For what its worth

10 Jan. 2003


Marc,


You write very well. I like very much your statement "I'm not saying destroy, just improve."

The corporate world consisting of managers, analyst, secretaries, (and even presidents and VP), etc. all need the power of organization and cooperation those Alpha Five posses.

In my opinion. the average corporation is in totally chaos with duplicate information and information which is not shared amongst its employees. They need a quality product like Alpha Five.

At our company with over 3,000 employees, probably five percent or less use Access or a similar data base. Probably 99% of the employees with a computer use Excel (spreadsheet) for storing data. This is spreadsheet and they use it because it works and it simple. The 95% don't use Access because it is not simple (and therefore cost effective). Even with Alpha Five supposedly being simple/better than Access, it has a way to go to simplify it for non-developers.

Like you said Marc, "I'm not suggesting that Alpha lose its focus on the developer community. But you need to understand that the corporate world is comprised of far more teams and workgroups requiring custom solutions than it needs of enterprise level apps. . . Alpha's developer focus is a tremendous asset and should be preserved"

The point is the corporate world, large and small companies need organization of their data to be more cost effective.

As such, my suggestion is to get it simple for the little guys to use Alpha and let the developers still do their thing with the data.

Have a great day,
JG
Houston, TX

[Marc King - A5solutions]

RE: For what its worth

Hi John,

Here in the Silicon Valley CA. most every company has a copy of FM and has outgrown it. As a result they turn to Access and by extension Visual Basic for thier internal solutions. These companies have teams of analysts and developers who do nothing but attempt to "Organize" the process. I have been such an e-business developer. These in house solutions seem to be preferable to the incurred cost of large enterprise deployment and training. The ROI on such large systems is almost never realised.

In my oppinion Alpha presents a tremendous opportunity for internal corporate developers to improve the performance of thier existing operations. Alphas ease of use is substantial in the hands of a moderatly experienced systems designer and I have full confidence that the next revision will bring us another tremendous increase in creative power. (Web, ADO, COM).

The opportunity for Alpha is very strong - affordability, scalability, extended cost savings, ease of use. The market is ready for Alpha if they want to take it.

[John Guy]

RE: For what its worth

Marc,


Noted and agree. (Also, Alpha Five has the use of email and "someday" MAYBE, Alpha will have the ability to fax directly data to those persons who do not have email.)

Thanks a million,
JG
Houston, TX
281-579-4546