Database as commodity again

Post #108,701 by FuManChu 7/8/03 12:49:36 PM Reply	Database as commodity again I don't usually like to point people to other people's opinions, but this was IMO a spot-on, balanced answer to Oracle's announcement (what, a week ago?) that: they are going to continue to pursue a very vertical model, attempting to provide database and application framework together in a single product. Of course, many of you will have to gloss over the JDO evangelism. :) [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/31613.html\|http://www.theregist...ent/53/31613.html] I'm gonna go build my own theme park! With Blackjack! And hookers! In fact, forget the park!
Post #109,448 by tablizer 7/13/03 2:56:41 AM Reply	Database independence not practical In the past this lock-in was unavoidable, but now persistence standards, particularly Java Data Objects (JDO) deliver the reality of total database independence. Without fear of lock-in or technical compromise, it is inevitable that enterprises will utilise whatever persistence mechanism best suits the job. Process integration does not mean data consolidation. I will believe it when I see it. Only if you use a lowest-common-denominator subset of SQL can you have vendor independence, and that is too restraining. Some OO systems use the database as a mere file-system of sorts, and they can probably get away with that. But those kind of apps often reinvent a lot of stuff in code that could and perhaps should be done by the database. A better solution for swappability would be to toss SQL for a more programmer-friendly language based on simpler primatives instead of the COBOL-like SQL. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #109,461 by ChrisR 7/13/03 11:05:39 AM Reply	COBOL-Like-SQL A better solution for swappability would be to toss SQL for a more programmer-friendly language based on simpler primatives instead of the COBOL-like SQL. COBOL is an Imperative language. SQL is a Declarative language. It's interesting that you're proposals for fixing DB programming involve Imperative languages - thus being much more related to COBOL than SQL.
Post #110,073 by tablizer 7/17/03 1:56:45 AM Reply	no, it is not It's interesting that you're proposals for fixing DB programming involve Imperative languages Where have I said this? (A long time ago we had an argument about such, but I eventually caved in.) The language I propose could be seen as functional or logical. But, could be implemented sequentially for smaller libraries. That is the beauty of it. ________________ oop.ismad.com

Welcome to IWETHEY!