I came to the same conclusion all those years ago. A+ jml
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Dan Covill <[email protected]> wrote: > The DBC was designed and implemented by the same folks that brought us > the Registry. When we found out that names >10chars were implemented > only in the DBC, and not the DBF, we did two things. First, we kept all > field names to 10 chars so that IF we went to DBCs we wouldn't be > depending on that feature, and second, we deferred the use of DBCs, > pending experience in the field. Well, the "deferral" turned into > "never", and we have zero regrets. I have yet to see any advantage to a > DBC that is not more than offset by increased fragility and maintenance > requirements. > > If you want a container for tables, go to a SQL database. > > Dan Covill > San Diego > > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/capqlobxuxkxk3k8axzfzampfmxiebhpjdgypqrvbajhb4po...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
