Re: standard database programming language

Comments interspersed.

Billy Verreynne wrote:

>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.
>

Why must you throw in such loaded words as "cold" and "ruthless"? I too approach everything
I do in business with the goal of growth and profit. But that doesn't make me cold or ruthless.

In fact Ruth has told me on several occassions that I am getting warm. ;-)

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

I've looked. What am I supposed to be seeing?

>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.
>

Of course there are. There are numerous examples of genocide too. But that doesn't make every
death an international war crime.

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

And who put a gun to the developer's heads and forced them to to use the proprietary API? Consider
that maybe they did so, for whatever misguided reason, because they saw an advantage in doing so.

>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
>
>

There is almost no one on this planet more cynical than I am. Being cynical has a strange ability to make
you correct more times than naught. But cynicism is valueless if exercised in a vacuum. I have no
evidence that the reason Oracle has MVCC and the others don't is some cynical plot to lock developers
into Oracle's architecture. I have quite a few good reasons to believe it was done because it was deemed
superior. And everytime I execute DBMS_FLASHBACK ... I have another reason to agree.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)