Re: Relationals vs. Objects Databases I

In article <azppDBAqIVy0EwpC_at_jbdr.demon.co.uk>, Jeremy Rickard <Jeremy_at_SPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6a5vg3$gjf$1_at_pebble.ml.org>, Joel Garry
><joelga_at_pebble.ml.org> writes
>
>>>>No. All OO programming languages are computationally complete
>>>>(only requires arrays, if and goto (loops)). OO centainly 'fits' the way
>>>>people think about problems.
>>>
>>>In practice, SQL seems complete enough in my experience.
>>>
>>
>>???
>>
>>Perhaps you are using SQL to mean the various extended sql's like SQL*Plus?
>
>No, I really meant standard SQL. In the sort of work I do, we typically
>embed it in a standard 3GL such as COBOL II, which is quite capable of a
>few iterations and selections if needs be! Cursors tend to be used more
>often than pure set-based SQL.

Uh, if you have to embed it to get the functionality, then the SQL isn't very complete, is it?

>
>Adding this procedural support to SQL itself would be completely against
>the principles of relational algebra, with seemingly few advantages over
>embedding SQL in a host language.
>
>--
>Jeremy Rickard
>
>(To email, change "SPAM" to "jbdr" in address.)

-- 
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest
jgarry@eiq.com                           http://www.informationquest.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry
"See your DBA?"  I AM the @#%*& DBA!