Re: RDBMS : Do we still live in 20th century?

In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, "Valentin Tihomirov" <valentin_at_abelectron.com> transmitted:
> It is much more convenient to define a type of a column selecting it
> from a combo box of possible types. I create tables only once, fill
> them with columns, set attributes for the columns. Then I set
> relations between fields of different tables. There is absolutely no
> need to program these scripts again and again for every table. Why
> none of the modern RDBMS I know about do not provide the
> functionality like MS Enterprise Manager does?

.. Because this is NOT the functionality of a RDBMS, just as "MS Enterprise Manager" is NOT a RDBMS.

1. When people need this sort of functionality, they use specialized tools like "MS Enterprise Manager" or ErWin or other such things.
2. Pushing this sort of functionality into a RDBMS will just lard it up with pointless flab that makes it buggier. Hmm... Sounds like the typical Microsoft application to me...
3. Why would a "combo box" be so useful anyways? There aren't that many potential data types that it should be problematic to choose this. [Quoted]
4. This is the WRONG ANSWER anyways.

    The right answer would be for SQL to be extended with a keyword     similar to "CREATE TYPE."

    You might thus define:

      CREATE TYPE CUSTOMER_ID CHARACTER VARYING(12);     (Perhaps with the possibility of having additional constraints.)

    And then use a set of types, thus defined, to unify the handling     of data types throughout your application.

-- 
(format nil "~S_at_~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/rdbms.html
Why is "abbreviation" such a long word?