Re: SQL Implementation

gnuoytr_at_rcn.com (robert) wrote in message news:<da3c2186.0310011416.4bff9968_at_posting.google.com>...
> 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

You might be interested in the following lecture by Tony Hoare. He discusses all of the above mentioned in

http://www.braithwaite-lee.com/opinions/p75-hoare.pdf

regards,
Lauri Pietarinen Received on Sun Oct 05 2003 - 21:57:47 CEST