Re: Join Anti-SQL SIG

Dave Mausner sez:
>In article <1ue8oh$80m_at_crl.crl.com> xena_at_nntp.crl.com (Starflight Corp.) writes:
 

>>
>> ANTI-SQL SIG
>> Application
 

>This is VERY silly. If it is not a prelude to an advertisement for a specific
>(as-yet-unmentioned) product then it is merely a waste of time.
 

>If the authors have something to offer, they should make it public and take
>whatever criticism comes their way. The only proof that a better interface
>to relational db's exists is in the buying behavior of the marketplace. So
>far, almost all alternatives have been abandoned in favor of SQL. If there
>is something else that db vendors are willing to standardize and support,
>let's see it already.

Speaking for me, not for _them_. I'd agree that SQL has it's shortcomings as a standard, as witnessed by the nonstandard extensions that exist out there. However, I don't understand the point of having a SIG that's _against_ a particular language, i.e. I can understand the utility of, say, a FORTRAN user group, but not an anti-COBOL user group. What do these folks do, meet every third thursday and gripe about a language they don't like? Don't like SQL? Fine by me, you say tomay-to I say tomah-to. Buy a competing product and vote with your dollars. As long as folks are willing to pay people to develop a product, that product will be delivered. Capitalism in action.

I'd agree with Mr. Mausner above - let's hear about Starflight Corp.'s product. I'm not a sales type, but I think "We Just Aren't Standard" is not a terribly compelling slogan. And that's about all we know about it.

Dave Criswell
Not Speaking For Oracle Corp., Obviously. Really, I mean it. I'm not kidding. Received on Thu Jun 03 1993 - 22:13:50 CEST