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

I never implied that Oracle couldn't be improved. I, for one, would like to have a feature that would allow me to call C functions from within PL/SQL in a manner similar to user exits in Oracle Forms.

However, when it comes to something like DBMS_OUTPUT and its 1M limitation, I don't see the problem. DBMS_OUTPUT is just an overloaded hook into DBMS_PIPE. If someone doesn't like the 1M limitation, then simply use DBMS_PIPE and have a listener capture the output. That isn't a code-around, that is the way it was intended to be used.

Also, I don't know why pl/sql programmers tend to ignore this, but on UNIX systems, /dev/fd/1 and /dev/stdout are treated just as if they are files by PL/SQL. If you utl_file.fopen() /dev/fd/1 and send output there with utl_file.put_line() it will send the output to stdout immediately (taking into account any block buffering that may take place). The same goes for /dev/fd/0, /dev/stdin, /dev/fd/2 and /dev/stderr. Do you think that the original author of all these complaints ever tried this? Probably never occurred to him.

As for the claim that PL/SQL should provide functionality just as if it is a programming language, take a look at the following taken directly from Oracle's documentation:

"This software was not developed for use in any nuclear, aviation, mass transit, medical, or other inherently dangerous applications. It is the customer's responsibility to take all appropriate measures to ensure the safe use of such applications if the programs are used for such purposes. "

I've never seen a disclaimer like that for C, FORTRAN, COBOL, RPG, Modula/2, PL/I or any of the other real programming langauges that I've ever used.

Did you know that even Oracle does call PL/SQL a programming language? Their description is:

"PL/SQL is a completely portable, high-performance transaction processing language that offers the following
advantages:

     support for SQL
     higher productivity
     better performance
     portability
     integration with Oracle"

In short, PL/SQL is a tool - that's all. If I want the resources of a real programming language then I must use a real programming language which gives me access to the operating system of the machine where I run my code. In some cases that might mean embedding pl/sql blocks in a PRO-C program, but ultimately it is nothing more then an quick way of doing something that might take longer to code without PL/SQL.

The original's author's enumeration of Oracle "faults" had nothing to do with getting things working properly. It was his pet list of things that HE thought the language should contain. He is probably the type that wonders why Oracle doesn't come knocking on his door begging him to come work for them so that he can fix their "problems". I happen to think that Oracle has done an admirable job in keeping (and in most cases surpassing) up with the competition and after using Oracle for years I'd be loathe to switch to any of the inferior products such as Sybase and Informix.

As to my UK comments - if the UK can do it better then I wish they would. The US has been pioneers in programming langauges and integrated database environments. The UK has benefited from what the US has produced but they are largely behind the curve when it comes to rolling out new products. Can you explain that disparity?

Simon Hedges wrote:

> Ken wrote:
> > I guess this is the young crop of programmers that are coming up these
> days. In
> > my early years in the business we even had to write assembly language
> routines
> > to handle certain tasks - most programmers these days don't know a MOV
> from a
> > LD.
>
> I certainly don't. But then, I don't need to.
>
> > These things you are speaking about simply are not impediments to getting
> > tasks done.
>
> Yes they are. They don't actually stop things getting done, but they
> require code-arounds and thought, and so they slow down development. I
> like to concentrate on bringing the most functionality I can to my users in
> the shortest amount of time. The fact that special code has to be written
> to do these things makes them take longer.
>
> I like Oracle - it's great. Some of the PL/SQL features are brilliant. But
> that doesn't mean it's perfect: it can be improved. And the original
> writer in not wrong in some of his assertions (if written a little
> strongly). I too get fed up sometimes of a system which is not as
> responsive in its languages, feature and tool as it might be.
>
> As for your views on the UK being a bunch of whingers, it is interestingly
> the guy from the UK who seems to have a 'let's get this thing fixed so it
> works properly' whereas you (from the US?) have a 'We've got what we've
> got, so we'll pretend it's all OK and work with it' attitude.
>
> Given that the national stereotype (from this end, anyway) is that the Brits
> put up with things, whereas American complain in order to improve things,
> this is rather an interesting reversal.
>
> Simon Hedges
> Gloucester
> In the whingy old UK
Received on Thu Jul 29 1999 - 07:10:25 CDT