Re: Oracle #1? Then why are these still missing...

In article <379F1AB8.73D6DC32_at_Unforgettable.com>, Kenneth C Stahl <BluesSax_at_Unforgettable.com> wrote:
>I disagree strongly. PL/SQL and the standard packages were never intended to be
>a full-blown applications development environment. Those who have started to
>work with Oracle in the last few years are lucky - Back in release 6.0 and
>previous the pl/sql functionality was extremely limited and yet we felt lucky
>that we even had it because it made certain tasks easier to perform.
>
> [...]
>
>I guess this is the young crop of programmers that are coming up these days. In
>my early years in the business we even had to write assembly language routines
>to handle certain tasks - most programmers these days don't know a MOV from a
>LD. These things you are speaking about simply are not impediments to getting
>tasks done.

``Back in my day, we didn't have those fancy-dancy latex condoms. We had a rabbit skin and a bungy cord...And you couldn't feel nothing... and we liked it that way! And we did data entry using JCL cards that we punched with our teeth! I could patch a running copy of OS/360 with my dentures, a pencil and a stopwatch....''

Please. Perhaps the ``young crop'' has some good ideas and simply isn't satisfied with the current state of things? Can you state why they are wrong? Sure, someone could go to the trouble of writing workarounds, but what's the point? Why continually reinvent the wheel? This is what things like subroutine libraries are for; which is maybe why Oracle should be supplying it in the first place.

• Dan C.

-- 
Remove the ``no'' and ``pam'' to send me email.
-- 
My only goal in life is to learn to play the Sax like Junior...