Re: newbie queston: why would anyone use Oracle?

IANAL_VISTA wrote:
> "PJ6" <nobody_at_nowhere.net> wrote in news:tLZYe.15$j_3.5_at_trndny07:
>
> > "William Robertson" <william.robertson_at_bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:1127500387.720471.142950_at_g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> The idea that PL/SQL is for "introducing loops and other procedural
> >> badness directly into my queries" or that it is "simple", or that you
> >> shouldn't use various arbitrary features on the grounds that "they
> >> are probably not simple deviations from the relational model" is
> >> absolutely ridiculous and an insult to full-time PL/SQL developers.
> >> That includes me by the way. It is as simple or otherwise as you
> >> choose to make it. PL/SQL has nothing whatever to do with introducing
> >> loops into queries. That is what XML is for. Jeez.
> >
> > You shouldn't take it personally, I already admited that I know very
> > little about what we're discussing. Certainly it was not my intention
> > to insult anybody.
> >
> > "PL/SQL has nothing whatever to do with introducing loops into
> > queries."
> >
> > Then why did someone call PL/SQL "procedural"? To me "procedural"
> > means GL3. GL3 structures and concepts, when possible, need to be
> > avoided in a set-based language. At least that's what I was taught
> > when I learned theory. Maybe I just misinterpreted someone else's
> > comment.
> >
> > If not, I do acknowledge that there is still a need for GL3 features
> > in relational languages. SQL Server 2005 (and probably Oracle already)
> > finally provided a way of expressing recursive joins. But I hear the
> > performance is poor, so in the land of MS, transitive closure will
> > still require an IES.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
>
> Please try doing an
> IF
> THEN
> ELSE
> construct in pure SQL
>
> With SQL you start at the top & execute statements until you drop out the
> bottom.

You do? Received on Sat Sep 24 2005 - 10:01:17 CDT