Re: standard database programming language

Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote i

> >On the developer side - do you *honestly* believe for a nanosecond
> >that this standard language will be implement equaly by each vendor?
> >That they will actually support the standards of this language without
> >trying to screw each other and screw us in order to tie us down to
> >their version of the language?
> >
> A bit harsh there methinks. The same thing happens in a completely
> altruistic world too. The vendors
> don't have to be trying to tie you down ... they may be trying to
> provide more value by making their product more useful ...
> trying to distinguish their product to make it
> more appealing. They may have the very best of intentions.

If those companies were run by open source developers, yes. But they are not. They are run by cold and ruthless businessmen whose goal at the end of the day is to show growth and profit.

Look at OpenGL and Microsoft and what happened there. Look at Java and Microsoft. Look at the Glide API and 3Dfx.

There are numerous examples where vendors have purposefully attempted (and succeeded) to tie down developers to their products by offering an "open standard" development language/API with various proprietary implementations.

Or where a standard that cannot be subverted (like OpenGL) have been purposefully sidelined ifo pushing a proprietary API onto the developers.

I'm too much of a cynic to believe that the motives of vendors are not profit or growth motivated. Even when it comes to someone like Red Hat.

--
Billy