Re: standard database programming language

Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote:

> Why must you throw in such loaded words as "cold" and "ruthless"?

I'm making sweeping statements?

> I too approach everything I do in business with the goal of growth
> and profit. But that doesn't make me cold or ruthless.

Well, my approach is fun. Even my wife says that I'm not better than a kid at times. :-)

Seriously though, that is IMO where professionalism and integrity comes into Daniel.

Simple example. You get a call from a client with a problem. It is outside their SLA with you. You fix the problem. It is a 10 minute job. You do it via dialup to a toll free number. The cost to you - 10 minutes of your time. The same amount of time it takes you to sit on the throne while paging through the latest copy of the Oracle Mag. ;-)

Do you charge them for an hour's worth of work using very expensive non-contractual rates? Or do you tell them that it's on the house and done with pleasure?

That is where I start to draw the line between a cold and ruthless business approach and a professional one, based on personal integrity.

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

That much I have already guessed Daniel. ;-)

> >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?

Microsoft's Java implementation not only fails Sun's Java certification/compliancy tests, they purposefully warped the language with extentions to trap Java developers in using Microsoft Windows.

3Dfx attempted the same type of thing back in the 90's. You had to use the Glide API to use hardware acceleration and features of the 3Dfx chipset. Games were sold that were 3Dfx only. I.e. you had to buy a 3Dfx card in order to play the game. They very much dominated the market. Only mistake they made, which resulted in their demise, was to think that Microsoft will not play the exact game. Which Microsoft did.

Along came DirectX's Direct3D API. Not only making 3Dfx a distant memory, but also deliberately screwing the OpenGL standard.

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

Of course not. But then what else do you expect when I make sweeping statements? Sheez! :-)

> 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.

It is not that simple. In the case of OpenGL and Microsoft, Microsoft withdrew from the OpenGL Standards Committee. They stopped 1st level support and intergration of OpenGL with Windows. Why? Why when they *supported* OpenGL in the beginning and sung its praises? Because it made more sense to have a proprietary graphics API.

OpenGL is better than Direct3D. Hell, John Carmark showed that.. using a *subset* of the OpenGL API (aka miniGL) instead of Direct3D.

Still - you want to release a 3D graphics app. What do you do? Select OpenGL or Direct3D? Which one is the one that the operating system vendor will bent backwards to support? Which one not?

Remember what happened in Windows 3.1 when DR-DOS was released? You will be silly not to select Direct3D if your product is going to be Windows based.

> There is almost no one on this planet more cynical than I am.

Hehehe... try me. :-)

> 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 no problem with that statement. Nor is it what I intended to convey.

> 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.

And I agree to agree with what you are agreeing. ;-)

My points are simply this.

One. Logic tells me that a company will not incorporate an open standard or open source language or whatever into their core product, without that making darn good business sense to do it. (i.e. Oracle implementing an open standard stored proc language versus Oracle adding Java to their core product - one make bussness sense, the other not)

Two. The cynical side of me says that when it does make business sense, some companies (like Microsoft) will purposefully change that implementation in such a way to lock the developer into that specific implementation.

Do I accuse Oracle of point one? Yes. Of course.

Do I accuse Oracle of point two? Nope - I have not seen any evidence to point to that. But I have seen it industry.

--
Billy