Re: New RDBMS implementation

On Thu, 06 May 2004 10:13:16 -0300,
=?iso-8859-1?q?Leandro_Guimar=E3es_Faria_Corsetti_Dutra?= <leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Now what I mean is that if you do any D embedded from a host
>language, how do you control transactions if your D has only
>single-statement (actually grouped statement) transactions?

I said that the "single statement transactions" would be the default behavior, not the only.

It would be a problem if you had to build a huge statement.

>> For typical business systems probably not. All we really need are chars
>> numbers and booleans. But for a general purpose DBMS it would be very
>> recomendable IMO.
>
> I toyed around a little with Dataphor D4 v1 hierarchies, and
>the problem was that deciding on a hierarchy for even moderately
>complex types was not worth the trouble.

I still don't see the problem.

>> There are still millions of Pascal hackers.
>
> No, these are only good Pascal programmers. Hackers despise
>Pascal.

Funny :)

I can assure you that bad Pascal programmers exist :(

>> But Lisp is not a relational database language.
>
> But it can talk to one, and one can use Lisp to build one.
>
> There was someone who did a Scheme flavor of SQL, I seem to
>remember...

Yes, but what I mean is that a pure functional database language would not have relvars!

Can you imagine a business relational database without real relvars and views?

>> They can do that anyway.
>
> So why run the risk? Just for some marginal technical
>improvements and to go along the herd?

I don't see the aditional risk and the technical improvements are important IMO.

>> I don't see anything wrong in VS integration
>
> I see. I can't legally use it, it is too expensive
>hereabouts.

But it does not mean that it must be the only way to use it.

C# is integrated in VS and you can use it with SharpDevelop or the console.

BTW I heared that there are versions of VS for about $200.

> Navision is their entry-level offering. They have other, not
>so bad offers: Great Plains, for example.

I never heared about it.

> But the thing is, had they nothing, they'll come after you if
>you get in their radar. If you are cross-platform, you have a way
>out. Moreover, if you are not cross-platform, you are really feeding
>your own executioner...

But for us to be out of the MS platform is the same as to be dead.

There are many many companies that compete with Microsoft in the Windows platform with success.

>> What I hear is that Microsoft made a mistake with Navision.
>
> This is about MS WinCE, not Navision.

Not what I heared, and WinCE is putting Palm out of the business at least in my country.

> You are in the rich parts of the world. Hereabouts we're
>using OpenOffice.org which we can afford, and gives us freedom.

IMO that is the question. The cost of the licenses is not very important here and MS Office is significantly better than OpenOffice.

Every employee knows how to use Windows and MS Office, and they are very resistant to the change.

>> You can count with your fingers the people that touch the Linux kernel.
>
> Yet I know scores of people who can use old hardware because
>of GNU/Linux, and lots of others who use it for freedom.

But here you have to pay for retiring old hardware.

> Please don't help MS Novilingua. Net is a nickname for the
>Internet. The product is called MS.Net.

Sorry, it was a typo.

>>> Java developers seem to disagree quite a lot from you.
>>
>> I also developed in Java.
>
> Perhaps some time ago?

Years ago.

>> But this is the raison d'etre the .Net framework. The 64 bit "revolution"
>> is near.
>
> You've been reading too much press releases. 64 bits have
>been around for a decade.

I meant the generalization of the 64 bit computers.

The vast majority (in number) of the computers used in the homes and the business has a 32 bit architecture.

> MS had MS WNT for the Alpha and killed it
>before enabling 64 bits in it. MS waited until now to have 64 bits
>products again so they could do it with no porting at all.

But with big performance penalties.

> That is
>the real reason why Opteron is going to kill Itanium

I doubt that.

Regards
  Alfredo Received on Thu May 06 2004 - 16:34:54 CEST