Re: Sybase buys Powerbuilder - Is Oracle Dead?

now CHILDREN, that's ENOUGH of whose dbms is bigger & better. i'm sure that when you grow up you'll realize that NO dbms is perfect!

steve

In <hackD0193n.2zB_at_netcom.com>, hack_at_netcom.com (Magick) writes:
>In article <CzzJD0.7Ir_at_sybase.com>, <David.Heller_at_sybase.com> wrote:
>>
>>If you Oracle users and fans are going to crosspost to the Sybase group, be
>>prepared for corrections and critique.
>>
>>How are Oracle stored procedure calls more flexible than Sybase's? Can you
>>give some examples?
>>
>>I was told that Oracle stored procedures, can only return a single row. Is
>>this true? Sybase stored procedures can return multiple rows (without
>>resorting to temp tables or other workarounds). Do you really consider the
>>ability to return only a single row MORE flexible? The most important point of
>>relational database operations is, IMHO, working with sets of rows, not row at
>>a time processing.
>
>Since you are trying to pick nits... Sybase uses a very
>specific language built around SQL 89 standards, while
>Oracle uses a pretty non-specific language and the whole
>thing is based on SQL 92 standards. That is what I meant
>by more flexibility -- to some of us out here, adherence
>to standards is important.
>
>AND, I apologize. When I posted my response, I was not
>aware that it was being crossposted to the Sybase group,
>so it was not as though I INSISTED on doing anything.
>
>And, since you seem to work for the company, when are you
>guys finally going to get row-level locking? Or like
>adhering to any kind of recent standards, is that not
>important?
>--
>replies to: hack_at_netcom.com
>Disclaimer: the opinions expressed here do not necessarily
>reflect any known standards of thought and may not make any
>sense whatsoever...