Re: History behind 30 character name limit?
From: Serge Rielau <srielau_at_ca.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:22:22 -0500
Message-ID: <63fp9pF2727obU1@mid.individual.net>
>
>
> This is a statement I happen not to agree with. It's been more than
> once that I'd have been happy to use identifiers for tables that
> had been longer than 30 characters. Because you don't want or need
> them, doesn't mean the same thing for me. And lastly, if I actually
> could create objects with longer names doesn't stop you from not
> doing so, but the opposite isn't unfortunately true.
Presumably the limit is not 30 characters but rather 30 bytes? If so add chinese characters to the mix...
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:22:22 -0500
Message-ID: <63fp9pF2727obU1@mid.individual.net>
Rene Nyffenegger wrote:
>> You do not need object names over 30 characters in length and trying >> to maintain code where long object names force scrolling right and >> left to be able to read a single line of code is extremely difficult >> for most developers.
>
>
> This is a statement I happen not to agree with. It's been more than
> once that I'd have been happy to use identifiers for tables that
> had been longer than 30 characters. Because you don't want or need
> them, doesn't mean the same thing for me. And lastly, if I actually
> could create objects with longer names doesn't stop you from not
> doing so, but the opposite isn't unfortunately true.
Presumably the limit is not 30 characters but rather 30 bytes? If so add chinese characters to the mix...
Anyways, it was said earlier that lifting such limits is not easy. Very true. Lot's of grunt work, no marketing advantage, no patents, ...
Cheers
Serge
-- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto LabReceived on Sat Mar 08 2008 - 09:22:22 CST