Today we're talking about why Microsoft Access is often a better tool for building small-to-medium business databases than a lower-level programming language like C, C++, or C#.

This comes from a real email I got from a prospective student. He's looking to build a CRM for his business, and he said one of his developers wanted to build them a database in C#. I have nothing against C#. It's a modern, object-oriented language with a lot of power. But building a database system in it? That raised an eyebrow.

C# is a descendant of C and C++, which I used to program in back in the 80s and 90s. I originally learned C because I was running a BBS at the time. That's a bulletin board system, for those of you who missed that era. This was before the internet as we know it. You didn't just hop online and check your email. You had to dial into local boards with your modem, and those systems would trade messages and files overnight with other boards around the country. The software I was running called WWIV and it was open source, meaning anyone could make changes and customize it. The source code was written in C. So I bought a copy of Teach Yourself C by Herbert Schildt (great book - still have a copy on my shelf) and taught myself how to code just so I could modify and maintain that system.

C was a great language for writing standalone apps. Later I learned C++, which added object-oriented features. But when I started doing consulting work, I had never even heard of Microsoft Access. One of my early clients asked me if I could build a customer tracking system. I said sure, no problem. So I wrote a full-blown application in C. I handled all the data structures, file management, forms, navigation, validation, everything. It worked. Technically. But it took weeks of effort for something that Access could have done in two afternoons*.

Then I discovered Access, and from there, you know the history. Right tool, right job.

Think of it like this. Building your ERP system in C# is like buying a plot of land and building your own house from raw lumber and bricks. You have to draw the blueprints, pour the foundation, run all the wiring and plumbing, frame every wall, and install every light switch. And yes, in the end, you get exactly what you want. But it takes a lot of time, money, and specialized skill.

Using Microsoft Access is like moving into a well-built prefab house. The walls are up. The electricity and plumbing are done. The rooms are all there. You just move in, maybe rearrange some furniture, knock out a wall or two, and start living. It's faster, more affordable, and more than sufficient for most businesses that just need to track inventory, customers, invoices, and so on. And when you need more customization, Access lets you open the hood with VBA and SQL.

Here's another analogy I like: Using C# for a database is like trying to haul freight with a racecar. Yes, it's powerful. It's sleek. It's built for speed. You can push pixels around and squeeze every bit of performance out of the machine. But that's not what you want in a database. Access is more like a container ship. It's not flashy, but it's built to carry large amounts of structured data, safely and reliably. It's not the fastest, but its stable, reliable, and gets the job done.

And if you'll allow me one Trek reference - this is a Captain's Log, after all - building a database in C# is like programming your own holodeck simulation from raw code instead of using the voice interface. You could write every scene, script every character, obsess over every tile on the wall, and hard-code every interaction. But why would you? You could just say Computer, create tropical beach, bring me a hammock and a fancy umbrella drink, and make the sun stay right there for the next three hours. Let the system do the heavy lifting. Access is the holodeck's voice interface. C# is doing it all manually, line by line, while the rest of the crew is already enjoying mai tais*.

Look, C# is a great language. If you're building a commercial desktop application, an embedded system, or anything that requires low-level control and full-stack flexibility, go for it. But for a basic invoicing system or a customer database, don't reinvent the warp core. Use the tools that are built for the job.

LLAP
RR

* I look back on that system now, and it had less functionality than the TechHelp Free Template. So, I could have built it now in a few hours.

** Made with synthehol, of course. We could go to Red Alert at any moment and need all hands on deck.

P.S. To be fair, I've also said on several occasions that Access isn't always the right tool for the job. For example, in my Excel vs Access video, I mentioned that if all you need is a small spreadsheet with 20 rows in it to track a few things, then Access might actually be overkill. It's all about choosing the right tool for the job. If Excel gets the job done, use Excel. I still use it for quick things I need to track. Yes, me, the Access guy, still reaches for Excel sometimes. It's faster and easier for certain one-off tasks. Usually, I move up to Access when I need relationships - when I want to connect two or more things together in a meaningful way. That's where Excel starts to fall apart. But for basic, flat tracking, I'll throw it in Excel first. If it grows beyond that, then I'll build the database. You can build a Letter Writer in Access too, but for a one-off letter, I'll use Word.