Re: Oracle #1? Then why are these still missing...

My biggest mistake was in not noticing the 'uk' in the originator's email address. No wonder the message contained so much whining.

How many years have you been around programming 2? 5? Almost twenty years of experience has shown me that I have always been able to satisfy the requirements of the project design if I'm willing to work hard and not spend all of my time moaning and complaining about what some environment lacks.

As for Feuerstein the "expert" - he is another whiner and complainer and there are many instances in his book which indicate that he, like you, simply does not understand how the Oracle rdbms and tools operate. I keep his book handy for a quick refernence on some algorithms but I'd be embarrassed to turn in a project where I coded according to his methods and style. My employers expect better quality and I give it to them. Feurerstein's only claim to fame is that he wrote a book that got published by O'Reilly and is therefore widely available. That does not make him an expert. As for his contention that pl/sql is a "programming language" rather than just a progra

Weenieism is best kept in academic environments. It doens't work well in the real world of programming. Oracle provides a very powerful RDBMS which works in a consistant manner and, if used properly, is an excellent choice for any MIS setting that requires a database. If you don't like it then go back to IMS, RPG or CICS.

As for "petty" - If being petty keeps putting large checks in my bank account then I'll keep being petty - it has worked pretty well so far and I don't have to live in the U.K. I'd never work for Oracle either - they don't pay enough and prefer to keep young, inexperienced programmers on their staff because the prefer sheep rather than shepards.

Ken

Paul wrote:
If you don't like using Oracle then go try your luck with Sybase or Informix. I've been using the Oracle RDBMS for years now and am quite satisfied with it.

Years, so have I, many many years.
1. A "RANDOM" function.
2. A RANDOMIZE function to accompany "RANDOM" function. Neither of these are essential to the concept of a relational database. Infact, theoretically they would be diametrically opposed to the concept of "organized" data. If you need to perform randomization then you need to doit programatically rather than blaming the database for not providing that functionality

For your information PL/SQL is a programming language. Al programming languages (except PL/SQL) have a random function t facilitate statistical representation, because things occur in natur

with a random aspect. So Kenneth, you think a database would never be used in statistical representation? RUBBISH! Please don't lecture me on stuff you don't know anything about. So you've never done integer division before? So divide 1333 people into 5 groups as best you can. Oh you can cut the remaining people into little pieces. Ever programmed at all under Oracle? COBOL, ha! 4. Bitwise boolean functions OR, XOR, AND, NOT (not the same as boolean operators). Ever tried to write a decent encryption algorithm in Oracle without these? Ever tried to mask an integer to see if abit is set? Just overload the existing boolean operators to allow Bitwise boolean opeartions.
What on earth do these have to do with Oracle? What were you smoking when you came up with this nonsense. The Oracle RDBMS provides a means of storing data and extracting data. Except for data columns like RAW (which can only be stored or extracted), Oracle has no concept of binary data. That only exists outside of Oracle. If you want to do this stuff then learn C
Oracle also provides a means for processing data called PL/SQL PL/SQL has boolean operators so therefore boolean bitwise operation are a valid request. It is quite obvious that you never develop wit PL/SQL do you?
5. TO_HEX function. Are they stupid or what? You mean you don't know how to do this yourself? I learned this 20 years ago.
Yes I have written it, but can't you read? Are you a little bit slow Let me say it again, slowly... I quote from my original posting "Oh and before you read this list and reply: "But this is easy t implement" or "I've written something to do this anyway" let m explain....so have I had to write / find workarounds for all these But at the end of the day it shouldn't need to happen, it should have been in Oracle years ago. They're fundamental." Get it Kenneth? Want me to repeat it, or shall I simply say "That's easy, I wrote that 21 years ago" in your petty style. 6. TO_BASE function which can handle bases up to 64. This too
See *** above.
7. A variant of REPLACE that only replaces the first instance of search_string found. Come on Oracle simply overload it and add another parameter Max_Replaces (Max_Replaces > 0)

Have you ever heard of instr(). Duh!
See *** above. Duh! You really seem a little stupid don't you. 8. Alter Table RENAME COLUMN .... How bloody obvious is this? How many times do you need to be asked? OK you have constraints to consider but they know this. We don't like using the data-dictionary hack.
Why didn't you name it correctly in the first place? Those of us who are EXPERIENCED with Oracle know a dozen ways around this problem.

> See *** again Duuuuuhhhhhhhhhh!. I know many ways around this. I
> shouldn't have to use these "ways" around.
> >> 9. Constraint fk_MyForeignKey References MyOtherTable (MyPKField) ON
> >> UPDATE CASCASE. Is Oracle the only RDBMS that doesn't have a native
> >> on update cascade?
> >Have you ever heard of programatic solutions? The RDBMS isn't there to
> >solve your MIS problems - it provides a means of storing data so that you
> >can retrieve it in a relational way. Learn programming and you'll solve
> >these problems.
> UPDATE CASCASE is a basic relational technique. See any book on
> Referential database design. In the book's index Look up "Update
> Cascade" - a basic RDB concept.
> >> 10. Constraint fk_MyForeignKey References MyOtherTable (MyPKField) ON
> >> DELETE SET NULL. Another Oracle gotcha. It is basic referential
> >> principles. Every single DB design case tool has this but oh no not
> >> Oracle, it is far too obvious for them.
> >How many of the other RDBMSs have decode()? How many of them have the
> >equivalent of pl/sql? You've been reading too many database weenie theory
> >books lately. But then you are probably the type that would argue with
> >Donald Knuth because he has never developed a compiler consistant with the
> >books her wrote.
> You've never designed a database by the sounds of things. Again look
> up "DELETE SET NULL" - another basic RDB concept. But hey, away with
> RDB concepts, Kenneth and Oracle know better.
> >> 11. The ability to find out who is the locker when using pessimistic
> >> locking (e.g. when "select 1 from MYTable where MyPrimaryKey = MyValue
> >> for update nowait" fails because someone else has already
> >> pessimistically locked it.)
> >Have you ever heard of security? It is none of your business who has a
> >lock on a table. If you want a lock then you need to wait for it. What are
> >you going to do? Kill the pid of the process that has the lock? Gimme a
> >break. That is hacker mentality.
> So your could never think of a system which uses an Oracle backbone,
> which might require a little bit of user friendliness when, for some
> reason, someone can't seem to edit that record they want. Somewhere
> along the lines of "You cannot edit the ... record it is currently
> locked by ...". I think you should move to MS Access and leave DB
> stuff to us in the know. Those of us who have worked on / designed
> massive RDBMS based systems with thousands of non IT users and 100s of
> Gigabytes of data.
> >> 12 The ability to move the cursor back to correct typos in SQL plus.
> >> Why is it still not possible? Sometimes we haven't gone into another
> >> editor and we accidentally make a typo at the end of a 200 character
> >> line, so Oracle makes us retype the whole lot again. SQL Plus is and
> >> always has been an extremely poor interface.
> >Why don't you learn how to type accurately? Alternatively, why don't you
> >RTFM - there are plenty of editing capabilities in sqlplus and it also
> >allows you to use the OS native editor. sqlplus is ONLY a tool. If you
> >don't like the tool then write your own. What? You don't know how to write
> >your own version of sqlplus? I wrote a replacement years ago to serve my
> >own particular needs and it works quite well.
> Of course you never make a typo ever. Oh OK I'll rewrite SQL+, I'll
> reinvent the wheel just so I can move my cursor to edit something,
> just to fix an obvious short coming that Oracle haven't even looked
> at. Get a life.
> >> 13 Polymorphism in Objects. What other object modeling language
> >> doesn't have Polymorphism? derrrrr
> >Oracle is not a language. Oracle is an RDBMS. Oracle has supplied
> >interfaces such as pre-compilers, Developer 2000, etc., but they are for
> >convenience in developing appliations. There is nothing essentially
> >object-oriented about the database itself.
> Wrong! Oracle is now an Object Relational as well as Relational
> Database Management system. It is inherently sensible to couple
> methods that process the data with the actual data itself in the same
> data structure or table. Its called Object Orientation or in
> databases : Object Relational Orientation. It is based on the
> taxonomy of things in the real world. Then again you probably
> wouldn't know that. Ever used Objects in Oracle, nah thought you
> hadn't.
> Oh I've just noticed that in his PL/SQL book, Steven Feuerstein, one
> of the world's leading experts on PL/SQL, agrees Oracle should have
> Polymorphism, but then again you must be right and we must both be
> wrong.
> My shortcomings. Ha! you are the one who thinks he's an Oracle God
> in Oracle heaven. Again let me enlighten you, XOR has been missing
> from PL/SQL since day one. It is a fundamental logical entity
> function and would be used in process control statements. Just in
> case you don't know what it means, it's a one or the other but not
> both situation. It can be written with NOTS, ANDs and ORs but XOR is
> clearer. Get it now? But of course when processing data you'd never
> want to control process flow on a condition of one or the other but
> not both, that's just stupid .... or maybe you just shout your mouth
> off without knwing what you're talking about.
> Ask any third party debugger writer if they like the fact you can't
> watch implicit loop variables. I'm good friends with the writer of
> TOAD (Tool for Oracle Application Developers), and he mentions this
> short coming. But hey you know best.
> You don't know a lot about using Oracle every day do you. Get off
> your cuckoo cloud and realise Oracle has faults. I'll give you one
> simple example, "create or replace user" would never have a use?
> >> I could continue, but I'm sure others will add to this.
> >I sure hope not. My advise to you is just get out of the Oracle
> >programming world if you find it so dxxx inconvenient. I'm sure with all
> >your wisdom you'd be able to come out with a product that can do all these
> >things, so why are you wasting your breathe moaning and complaining about
> >why Oracle doesn't. I bet they won't come groveling and ask you to come
> >work for them to solve all these problems.
Received on Wed Jul 28 1999 - 12:51:01 CDT