Re: Article about supposed "murky" future for Oracle

Sybrand Bakker <gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message news:<t5d660ld9cv7hpmg8r9b5k876qurkp8hvp_at_4ax.com>...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:51:21 -0300, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti
> Dutra <leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > I do use Oracle, but strictly for legacy apps. Oracle just
> >lacks a roadmap to standards compliance.
>
> ROFL. You are kidding are you? The
> 'standards' you seem to quote have several levels of compliance.
> And why would anyone even think about implementing the unreadable JOIN
> syntax of SQL92, if the older convention is more readable and works
> just as well.

So you think that a syntax that: (1) clearly splits out join predicates from other predicates, in an unambiguous manner, instead of mixing them together; that (2) requires you to only specify the join type once (instead of for each predicate used by the join - absolutely crazy); and that (3) uses natural language instead of contrived, non-standard operator symbols - is somehow less readable? And there was me thinking it was just not what you were used to.

Why did Oracle implement ANSI 92 join syntax, since you asked?

DG Received on Thu Mar 25 2004 - 18:53:35 CST