Re: SQL Implementation

joe.celko_at_northface.edu (--CELKO--) wrote in message news:<a264e7ea.0310010946.58a685ae_at_posting.google.com>...
> >> How well do todays databases implement SQL99? I dont think any are
> certified. Will they be? <<
>
> The FIPS-127 Certification program that was administered by NIST was
> closed down by Clinton years ago. But nobody has a great desire to
> use the SQL-99 specs as more than a guide for syntax when they add a
> new feature.
>
> The language got way out of hand when it was internally known in NCITS
> H2 (nee ANSI X3H2) as SQL3. We have about 100 contractions, three
> different object models, etc. The final results were better, but
> still a nightmare of non-relational features globbed together. The
> U.S. government refers to it as "a standard in progress", then asks
> for SQL-92 conformance in its bids.
>
> Remember PL/I? Algol-68? ADA?

            ^       ^         ^
            |       |         it's still alive and kicking
            |       with pleasure
            god, no

robert Received on Thu Oct 02 2003 - 00:16:34 CEST