"Howard J. Rogers" wrote:
> "DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message
> news:3E6FE354.61774345_at_exesolutions.com...
> > "Howard J. Rogers" wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:05:20 +0000, NorwoodThree wrote:
> > >
> > > > Theres no way in hell command-line SQL Plus is going away anytime
> soon.
> > > > GUIs suck.
> > >
> > > Well, we shall see, shal we not?
> > >
> > > HJR
> >
> > I think we can safely say that there will always, which means the
> forseeable
> > future, have an access method for Korn, Perl, and other scripting
> languages.
> >
> > Whether the name is SQL*Plus is a matter for marketing-types ... but it
> will
> > be there.
> >
> > Right now I am working in iSQL*Plus and I can't think of anything about it
> > that is any more of a problem than is the Windows client implementation.
> It
> > is a huge stretch from the elminiation of a separate Windows interface to
> the
> > elimination of the entire ability to do command-line SQL.
> >
> > Daniel Morgan
>
> I think things are getting a tad out of hand here. First, it wasn't me that
> said SQL Plus *would* be abolished. That was Pete Sharman posting that I
> *dreamt* it would be -I merely picked up the ball and ran with it for fun
> for a bit. *Could* we live without SQL Plus? I think we could these days,
> actually, and lose very little by way of functionality.
>
> Second, my essential point is/was that things have gotten to the stage where
> the command line is becoming more and more redundant: as I said, for
> example, Enterprise Manager is a very decent tool these days, and (to answer
> Chuckster) is entirely platform-independent, just like SQL*Plus. Whether
> there's a command line available or not is largely irrelevant: the issue is,
> will 80%+ of users actually need it or make use of it?
>
> Windows has a command line interface too. How many Windows users either (a)
> know that, or (b) care? Hell, even Linux newbies these days judge distros at
> least in part by the GUI tools provided (just saw a review of Red Hat v.
> Mandrake, for example, where Mandrake gets the vote because it has a better
> GUI SAMBA tool).
>
> I don't like iSQLPlus because it requires an HTTP server, which seems
> excessive compared to the requirements for SQL Plus (though there are
> enormous compensatory factors, of course). As a light-weight tool for
> achieving practically anything, SQL Plus is still unsurpassed -but that's
> true of any CLI. Doesn't mean it will be the tool of choice for most users
> most often.
>
> That's all I was getting at.
>
> Regards
> HJR
Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood your intent and thought you were
agreeing that it had limited life expectancy.
Daniel Morgan
Received on Thu Mar 13 2003 - 11:24:25 CST
