See answers embedded
Jim
--
Replace part of the email address: kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_attbi.com
with family. Remove the negative part, keep the minus sign. You can figure
it out.
"Simon Lenn" <simonlenn_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3641e2c2.0301062219.6b78acd5_at_posting.google.com...
> "dmz17" <dmz17_at_nospam.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.01.06.18.21.42.720822_at_nospam.nowhere.com>...
> > On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:21:30 +0000, Karsten Farrell wrote:
> >
> > <grin>
> > .. and a gazillion check marks amount to approx. 1 CD.
> > </grin>
> >
> > dmz17
>
> I hate to go back to the basics again. I categorically indicated
> that oracle was strategically moving and touting Java as the lingua
> franca. But everybody must remember why Oracle embraced Java
> in the first place was not C/C++ a cross platform open language why
No. You can't easily port C++ from one OS to another. Try writing
something on MS Windoze and then
porting it to Solaris on a Spark station. Certainly not as simple as Java
would be. Not saying C++ is a bad language, but it is not easily cross
platform.
> did not Oracle initiate efforts to enlarge and standardize C++ despite
> knowing the fact every major operating system to oracle database
> kernel even today is written in C++ and embrace C++. Despite Java's
> wide popularity and free JDK even today C/C++ is the most
> widely used language to develop real serious mission critical
> applications.
To try to come up with your own version of C++ that was cross platform
independent would be a huge task and still keep the C++ users happy. Ouch.
Too many language lawyers with the pointers and defreferencing etc. Never
make it out of committee.
> It as stood the test of time. But nobody bothered to make C++ as VB or
> Delphi.The reason why Oracle supported Java was because of the cosy
> relationship
> Oracle had with Sun at that time. Since, Sun was in bed with Oracle
> they supported and embraced Java I would say somebody is a fool if he
> says Java
> is better than C++.
They are different. There are things I can do in Java and get it running on
more platforms (time to market, not performance of the application) that I
or probably anyone could in C++. Again that is not to say C++ is not
powerful; it is. It is a great language. It isn't one I would start a new
programmer on.
C++ is even today the best and most powerful
> language it only needs proper committments from vendors to make it
> as easy to use as Visual Basic or Delphi or PowerBuilder. I would take
> a bet if Apple wants to make C++ the language of choice I can bet they
> will develop
> a killer language on top of C++ why can't Oracle do it.
>
Again, it isn't a technical reason it is a political one. The professionals
that use C++ are used to using it on their platform and would probably not
want to change the quirks they deal with today to have a true cross platform
C++. C++ is too mature to attempt to basterdise it. The battle of a
building a true cross platform C++ is too uphill.
> This is the best part why Oracle did it read further, the relationship
> between Oracle and Sun is sour if I can say why did Scott McNeilly
> decide not to show up at Oracle Open World very simple Oracle embraced
> Linux. Linux before even it bites Windows it will sweep clean all
> versions of UNIXes the first would be Solaris. If Solaris goes and
> if Intel Itanium and P4 based Linux servers can do the same job as
> the beastly Sun, HP 7 IBM UNIX servers at 1/10 th the price in Linux
> servers from Dell only brainless morons would be buying UNIX boxes.
Possibly. Oracle wants to sell Oracle and consulting services and Oracle
Applications etc. That's their business and if the buying public wants it
on Linux by golly they will make it available on Linux. I think Oracle
wants to keeps its options open. That is a smart thing to do.
> Like it or not
> this is where Oracle is screaming and taking the crowd in its Real
> application cluster-RAC. Oracle will lead the industry to decimate
> UNIX servers and create a upsurge in LINUX deployment. This is all
> bad news for Sun. Hey look at Sun's (The Java Company) stock price
> is around $3. Now there is open talk that a decimated Sun will be
> acquired by IBM. Remember the arch nemesis of Oracle is not Microsoft
> it is IBM, Larry dreads IBM even in is dreams and if IBM starts
> controlling Java guess what Larry would do he will press the deinstall
> button on Java. This is to put more gracefully called vendor politics.
> Why would Larry support IBM ?
He has pl/sql and now that you can compile it to native C code its looking
faster than ever.
>
> I have worked on other legacy systems like SAP R/3. SAP is all
> proprietary
> written in ABAP which Larry has rebuked time and again and even called
> SAP a dinosaur now SAP have extended ABAP to be object oriented it is
> all ugly it is nowhere comparable to PL/SQL but that is what they are
> extending. Java came and now it is going SAP have not budged they have
> stuck with the shocking proprietary language ABAP. I am amused that
> Oracle with such a powerful language like PL/SQL does not want to make
> it OO and develop it. Hey even Perl is Object oriented now.
>
Of course. SAP is a competitor. Larry isn't going to be all lovey dovey to
SAP. Probably not making pl/sql OO because it is too much of a paridigm
shift. About 10 years abo I worked with a bunch of people in an OO language
and none of us were OOPL programmers. It was amazing. It made the good
programmers better and the bad programmers worse. The ones that didn't get
it just wrote lousy code. (side effects all over the place)
>
> As somebody aptly said embracing Java would make Oracle smell like
> roses.
> BTW the next release of Microsoft SQL Server that is being released -
> Yukon in Mar 2003. SQL Server apparently can run stored procedures
> written in C, C++, Visual Basic, ASP, Visual J++ (MS Java) and all
> .Net languages including Perl & XMLScript in the SQL server engine MS
> is building a CLR runtime environment into SQL Server - imagine all
> those millions of lines of VB code that can be straight moved into the
> database that too as compiled code.
Not really. You have to translate it from vb6 to vb .net and they are
different. There are a bunch of things you can't do in this .net "language
neutral" world (eg closures) that you can do natively in things like
SmallTalk. So what you get is a subset of the language that is really a
method of having syntax that translates into C.
The development tool for SQL
> Server will be the touted Visual Studio and language not T-SQL but
> C++, C#, VB & ASP will not Oracle have a serious Guess what will
> Oracle and DB2 respond
> then !!. If Oracle was serious of server side programming options it
> must have
> supported C/C++, Java, Pl/SQL giving programming language options
> rather
> than forcign the world to just Java.
You have been able to write functions etc. in just about any compiled
language for Oracle for many years. Even ships with documentation and
example. It is just most people don't do it. You have been able to write
callable code in C from SQL Server at least since 6.5, but people don't do
it very much because it is difficult.
>
> To put simply PL/SQL is another me too ran programming language for
> Oracle.
It isn't for anything else and never has been touted as such. It is for
Oracle databases and that's it. Never heard anyone else say anything
different.
> If you do not trust me pose this question to Larry in the forthcoming
> Oracle Apps world conference when Larry has is pet Q&A session that he
> loves so much to answer. He will without hestitation say Oracle is
> moving
> away from PL/SQL. - Like it or not that is the truth he will even
> abuse PL/SQL calling it proprietary and of course he will shots at SAP
> at that but worthwhile posing this question to Larry than to us on the
> forum or Tom Kytes.
Of course, it is propriatary, I don't think anyone said it wasn't. Basic is
propriatary also. (no standards) A lot of things are propriatary. Most
things in the computer industry are proprietary or have a proprietary
extension. That's how vendors sell product. They all sell product and want
you to keep buying theirs and not the other guys. Who can blame them.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is rather niave.
>
>
> Cha
> Simon
Jim
Received on Tue Jan 07 2003 - 01:40:43 CST
