Re: Is Oracle SQL99 Compliant?

GreyBeard wrote:
> Funny how adherence to standard becomes important when discussed by the
> company promoting, or heavily influencing, the standard. (Oh, sorry ...
> that's just a mis-perception <g>)

Standards aren't an IBM invention and by no means was IBM standard friendly to begin with. It's a lesson hard learned. Oracle also participates in the SQL Standard (MS de facto does not).

The examples you brought up about saving lots of money would apply formost for functionality.
The cost of moving between vendors does not mainly come from these features. It comes from the more subtle incompatibilities that spread in a cancerous fashion through the app.
Note that the market (mostly ISVs) eventually do bring vendors back in line. Hands on examples would be compliant outer join syntax on one hand, and   sequences and identity being standardized on the other.

Adherence to standards or not is a major decision. You can agree with it or not. I just wanted to voice some words of caution. Just like I as an IBM employee selfishly see the cost of migration (causing me grief without end) an Oracle employee might see the subscription revenue stream :-)
The problem is by no means specific to the industry. Try changing your cellphone company in North America and contrast that with Austria (you can even keep your #)

Cheers
Serge Received on Fri Jan 14 2005 - 11:28:07 CST