Get Computer Name/Identifier

[isladogs]

@Isaac That was exactly my point from the start. See posts #14 & #17

 

[Minty]

@Isaac You are missing the point.
Many of us here specialise in Pedantry.

We are using that here to demonstrate just how much pedantry we can get into one thread.
And as Monty Python once said, "Not enough people are wearing hats"

 

[NauticalGent]

....or about as effective and shooting an elephant in the ass with a BB gun.

That being said, it IS good to now where the $ thing came from - if you use the "Covert Macro to VBA" option and include comments and error handling, it always uses "MsbBox Error$" and now I know a more about where it comes from.

 

[NauticalGent]

Many of us here specialise in Pedantry.

A word I did not know until I joined this Forum...educational on ALL fronts, this place is....

 

[Isaac]

@Isaac That was exactly my point from the start. See posts #14 & #17

I know, I was agreeing with you.

We are using that here to demonstrate just how much pedantry we can get into one thread.

I confess I enjoy a bit from time to time, myself

 

[isladogs]

@Isaac You are missing the point.
Many of us here specialise in Pedantry.

We are using that here to demonstrate just how much pedantry we can get into one thread.
And as Monty Python once said, "Not enough people are wearing hats"

Ha! Speak for yourself!
For me its just a pastime rather than a specialism

Hooray - the post has been moved out of the repository so no longer any need to wait for moderator approval

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I think I can help with the perspective here, @Isaac - based on an age consideration.

When Access was first created and as recently as Ac97, computers were still in the many-megaHertz speed range. Internal bus speeds topped out at maybe 66 MHz. Instruction cycles were not as cheap as they are now. Back then, it made a big difference to do conversions. Now, though, you can do gigaHertz operations and a couple of extra instructions to allow for conversions just doesn't make a lot of difference. Therefore, having the $ to force a string return doesn't matter that much. The test for a non-string variable is so short, so brief, that you can usually ignore it.

 

[Isaac]

I think I can help with the perspective here, @Isaac - based on an age consideration.

When Access was first created and as recently as Ac97, computers were still in the many-megaHertz speed range. Internal bus speeds topped out at maybe 66 MHz. Instruction cycles were not as cheap as they are now. Back then, it made a big difference to do conversions. Now, though, you can do gigaHertz operations and a couple of extra instructions to allow for conversions just doesn't make a lot of difference. Therefore, having the $ to force a string return doesn't matter that much. The test for a non-string variable is so short, so brief, that you can usually ignore it.

As always, thanks for the history lesson Doc. (I meant that seriously).

And lest anyone think otherwise, I am interested in efficiency, and I do believe that optimization is the holy grail of SQL development. It's just, in this context of Left$ vs. Left ........ :|

 

[The_Doc_Man]

As a matter of record, there used to be a conspiracy theory out there about how Microsoft DIDN'T want to create an optimizing compiler because they WANTED you to need that next higher model so that you would HAVE to buy a bigger machine. I can't speak to whether that theory is totally hogwash, but one truth is that users kept on wanting more functionality, and that MIGHT have had just a LITTLE to do with the growth in memory requirements as time passed. But the growth in requirements inevitably reached a point where you needed more CPU power to RUN the code for all those features. Which was one more reason why computers keep on getting faster.