I am not sure what your point is

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #211,989 by tablizer 6/21/05 8:02:51 PM Reply	I am not sure what your point is There are some things that SQL does well, and others that is does poorly. No tool is good at everything. The things that SQL tends to suck at, cursor-oriented techniques do fairly well at. Thus, if we combine the two, then we can cover more territory. But I would still like to replace SQL with a better relational language (for the non-cursor half). ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #211,991 by broomberg 6/21/05 8:11:42 PM Reply	It's been done already "perldoc DBI" for more info!
Post #212,001 by admin 6/21/05 9:10:53 PM Reply	Or PL/SQL, or TransactSQL, or... Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #212,012 by broomberg 6/21/05 11:13:03 PM Reply	Nah Give me a real language that happens to talk to databases over a database language that pretends to be real.
Post #212,013 by admin 6/21/05 11:16:54 PM Reply	I didn't say they were the best. Just that the fusion had been done already. I mean, sheesh... you can even use Perl and Python as stored proc languages in Postgres. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #212,014 by broomberg 6/21/05 11:20:25 PM Reply	I know. I do. I use it to allow an ODBC connected Coldfusion application execute a stored procedure that makes directories on an FTP server.
Post #212,026 by tablizer 6/22/05 1:03:50 AM Reply	I find PL/SQL and Transact/SQL too verbose ________________ oop.ismad.com

Simple SQL look-up turns out hairy - (tablizer) - (51) - May 26, 2005, 03:12:19 PM EDT

I awalys hated SQL based batch updates - (broomberg) - (12) - May 26, 2005, 03:16:23 PM EDT

Let's bring back FoxPro! - (tablizer) - (11) - May 26, 2005, 03:25:54 PM EDT

Silly person you - (broomberg) - (10) - May 26, 2005, 04:06:28 PM EDT

Preach! -NT - (drewk) - May 26, 2005, 04:33:17 PM EDT

63.472% Disagree - (tablizer) - May 27, 2005, 09:02:12 PM EDT

Real world example - (broomberg) - (7) - June 21, 2005, 07:36:14 PM EDT

I am not sure what your point is - (tablizer) - (6) - June 21, 2005, 08:02:51 PM EDT

It's been done already - (broomberg) - (5) - June 21, 2005, 08:11:42 PM EDT

Or PL/SQL, or TransactSQL, or... -NT - (admin) - (4) - June 21, 2005, 09:10:53 PM EDT

Nah - (broomberg) - (2) - June 21, 2005, 11:13:03 PM EDT

I didn't say they were the best. - (admin) - (1) - June 21, 2005, 11:16:54 PM EDT

I know. I do. - (broomberg) - June 21, 2005, 11:20:25 PM EDT

I find PL/SQL and Transact/SQL too verbose -NT - (tablizer) - June 22, 2005, 01:03:50 AM EDT

COALESCE - (drewk) - May 26, 2005, 03:30:37 PM EDT

Re: Simple SQL look-up turns out hairy - (JayMehaffey) - May 26, 2005, 03:52:18 PM EDT

Simpler SQL - (ChrisR) - (2) - May 26, 2005, 04:01:40 PM EDT

My 1999 book implies UPDATE....FROM is not standard -NT - (tablizer) - (1) - May 27, 2005, 09:06:38 PM EDT

Probably so... - (ChrisR) - May 27, 2005, 09:57:05 PM EDT

And you're surprised because what? -NT - (pwhysall) - May 26, 2005, 05:23:28 PM EDT

Another SQL Puzzle - (tablizer) - (31) - May 27, 2005, 09:15:39 PM EDT

Re: Another SQL Puzzle - (ChrisR) - (25) - May 27, 2005, 09:50:17 PM EDT

Hmmm. Standard? -NT - (tablizer) - (24) - May 31, 2005, 01:18:06 AM EDT

No such thing in SQL world - dialects everywhere -NT - (tuberculosis) - (22) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:44:10 AM EDT

Good point. Standard != Common_Implementation - (tablizer) - (21) - June 2, 2005, 08:41:49 PM EDT

Lemme guess... - (ben_tilly) - (20) - June 2, 2005, 09:24:29 PM EDT

The best way to fix non-standard implementations.... - (ChrisR) - June 2, 2005, 10:27:30 PM EDT

I had a look. - (static) - (13) - June 2, 2005, 11:25:00 PM EDT

Fish in a barrel -NT - (ben_tilly) - June 3, 2005, 12:27:31 AM EDT

Please be more specific -NT - (tablizer) - (11) - June 20, 2005, 08:55:05 PM EDT

Horse corpse - meet Mr. Stick -NT - (broomberg) - (1) - June 20, 2005, 09:09:47 PM EDT

IOW, guilty until proven innocent. IranWeThey - (tablizer) - June 20, 2005, 09:20:14 PM EDT

Sorry, I've got real SQL work to do. -NT - (static) - (8) - June 20, 2005, 09:44:01 PM EDT

SQL sucks (as a relational language) - (tablizer) - (7) - June 21, 2005, 02:18:03 AM EDT

Perhaps you need to get out of the design and... - (ChrisR) - (6) - June 21, 2005, 10:39:45 AM EDT

Some convergence perhaps - (tablizer) - (5) - June 21, 2005, 03:06:20 PM EDT

sounds like you would be happy doing MAS90 -NT - (boxley) - (2) - June 21, 2005, 03:20:32 PM EDT

Wow. That's harsh. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1) - June 21, 2005, 04:35:39 PM EDT

its straight forward, lucrative and he enjoys the language -NT - (boxley) - June 21, 2005, 06:03:18 PM EDT

You are writing a language IN xBase? - (broomberg) - (1) - June 21, 2005, 06:53:22 PM EDT

I am sort of pushing off parsing issues to something else -NT - (tablizer) - June 21, 2005, 08:04:39 PM EDT

WRONGO! - (tablizer) - (4) - June 20, 2005, 09:16:28 PM EDT

Re: WRONGO! - (JayMehaffey) - (3) - June 20, 2005, 10:19:39 PM EDT

Prefix != "procedural" - (tablizer) - (2) - June 21, 2005, 02:04:44 AM EDT

I wasn't talking aobut it's notation - (JayMehaffey) - (1) - June 22, 2005, 11:36:38 PM EDT

Variables can be semantic "references", not necess. storage - (tablizer) - June 23, 2005, 07:35:24 PM EDT

CASE is the ANSI/ISO-standard - (ChrisR) - May 31, 2005, 11:40:51 AM EDT

Easy if you have decode - (SpiceWare) - May 27, 2005, 09:47:22 PM EDT

Re: Another SQL Puzzle - (takicutie) - (3) - July 12, 2005, 12:07:06 AM EDT

hmm - decode won't work afterall - (SpiceWare) - (2) - July 12, 2005, 10:30:23 AM EDT

Nope, no negative in my case - (tablizer) - (1) - July 16, 2005, 01:26:43 AM EDT

It has been standardized. - (ChrisR) - July 16, 2005, 02:30:11 AM EDT

iwethey.org

Low-tech innovation with ordinary food items wins.
84 ms