Re: SQL Server 2000 Migrate to Oracle

Galen Boyer wrote:

[snip]

> I understand your point. All the OP said was:
>
> >> 1. Many of the tables and column names in SQL server are >
> >> than 30 Characters which meansa any auto inport I do fails.
> >> Is there a way to get around this.
>
> You then sarcastically slammed him on his design.

Go read my post again, Galen. All I said on his design was:

"I'm sure you will tell me there's a perfectly good reason why your column names are so ridiculously long. But I won't believe it, so don't."

You call that "slamming him"? Really?? I wouldn't even call that comment particularly sarcastic. I reserved the real sarcasm for the rest of the post, which had nothing to do with his design, and everything to do with the OP's assumption that a piece of SQL Server syntax should work in Oracle.

It seems to me that you have "slammed" me because I used two words you happen not to agree with at a technical level: 'ridiculously long'.

And you chose to couch your disagreement in a criticism of me personally; a comment about a soapbox you now choose to retract; references to 'Oracle coolaid'; and talk of me 'defending a limitation'. Talk about going over the top!

> I then chimed
> in to disagree with the crux of your design statements, and I
> labeled it as a soapbox. I'll tell you what, let me apologize
> for the soapbox comment.

I'll tell you what. If you disagree with me technically, stick to a technical discussion. We can have a meaningful debate about whether column names should be long and descriptive or not. But not if you choose to start it using the sort of inflamed language that characterised your initial response to me.

HJR
> It isn't the point of this argument and
> my labeling your comments as a soapbox puts me on my own soapbox.
> Not conducive to a good argument.
>
Received on Mon Aug 30 2004 - 14:37:27 CDT