Re: New RDBMS implementation
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 13:06:39 -0300
Message-ID: <pan.2004.05.06.16.06.37.397140_at_dutra.fastmail.fm>
Em Thu, 06 May 2004 14:34:54 +0000, Alfredo Novoa escreveu:
> I said that the "single statement transactions" would be the default
> behavior, not the only.
Ah, OK. Now I got it. Thanks.
> It would be a problem if you had to build a huge statement.
Not concerned about size, just about the interspersing of host and D languages.
>> 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.
The hierarchies tend to become big and confusing, and decision about where to put some obscure types tend to be uncomfortable arbitrary. If you are interested, I'd suggest you check Dataphor documentation and specially Alphora's newsgroups.
>> No, these are only good Pascal programmers. Hackers despise >>Pascal.
>
> Funny :)
Yes, but true. Hackerdom is quite finicky.
> I can assure you that bad Pascal programmers exist :(
As there are even bad Lisp programmers. My .emacs.el file would probably make RMS cry!
> Can you imagine a business relational database without real relvars and
> views?
>> 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.
How young are you? Haven't you seen how many companies MS have squashed or sidelined as soon as they get relevant?
But it is your life, your career, your business... your risk.
> But it does not mean that it must be the only way to use it.
No. But as seen in Dataphor, it can easily become the preferred way. One need VS.Net even to follow the Dataphor tutorial.
> 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.
This is more than double the minimum salary here. Heck, it is more than my rent. My employer is quite stringent in using free software or freeware whenever possible.
>> Navision is their entry-level offering. They have other, not >>so bad offers: Great Plains, for example.
>
> I never heared about it.
Just go to the 'business solutions' section of the MS site.
> But for us to be out of the MS platform is the same as to be dead.
That's what Java gives you, and more. Same with other portable languages, just with compilation needed...
That is MS' trick: making the definition of 'platform' grow and grow until you loose portability. It is yet mostly an illusion, but patents on MS.Net and its growing 'integration' with the rest of MS monopolist products to the exclusion of older, unencumbered protocols (which are insecure BTW) may make it a hard reality.
> There are many many companies that compete with Microsoft in the Windows
> platform with success.
Each and every one either has a niche where MS has no interest, or has been sidelined.
A DBMS and RAD tool will certainly be in MS' line of fire.
>>> What I hear is that Microsoft made a mistake with Navision. >> >> This is about MS WinCE, not Navision.
>
> Not what I heared
I lost you here... what you heard, and what do you mean?
> and WinCE is putting Palm out of the business at least
> in my country.
I guess you haven't seen the numbers... PDAs are loosing market share to smartphones, and in the smartphone market Palm, Linux and Symbian dominate. Palm has shifted its attention to its smartphones.
But then, Palm is too proprietary software. You really can't win the proprietary game, MS has it locked.
> IMO that is the question. The cost of the licenses is not very important
> here and MS Office is significantly better than OpenOffice.
In some aspects. In others OOo is significantly better. PDF output, reliability, recoverability of documents, cross-platform availability... all of these are more important to me than MS Office bells and whistles.
> Every employee knows how to use Windows and MS Office, and they are very
> resistant to the change.
Put them in front of Gnome 2.6 and OOo 1.1, they will hardly notice the change.
But that's beside the point. The point is that trying to win the proprietary game is a doubtful proposition; doing it in the MS platform is suicide; in direct competition to them, you are dead already and haven't yet been convinced of it.
>> 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.
So don't retire it. It is useful with efficient, POSIX OSs.
>> Please don't help MS Novilingua. Net is a nickname for the >>Internet. The product is called MS.Net.
>
> Sorry, it was a typo.
I see.. and that these typos will become more and more common shows the genius of MS in naming their products with common words.
>>> I also developed in Java. >> >> Perhaps some time ago?
>
> Years ago.
I figured that even without being a programmer.
>> 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.
That's proprietary software hindering progress for you.
Not only 32 bits -- that's not bad in itself -- but a severily limitating architecture demanding gobs of energy. I find quite tragically funny how Europe and the Left write gobs of articles about ecology, and how US and the Right about Islamism... in Wintel systems that help us keep dependent on petrol!
>> 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.
Alpha was significantly better than x86, but MS half-hearted support and arbitrary limitations killed it. That with some incredibly stupid DEC decisions, but that's quite another story.
Anyway the Alpha is history, and our only chance at getting efficiency now is with free software. Opteron will never be as efficient as any given RISC, and Itanium is hardly better than Opteron, hardly as good as RISC. It is a camel, as in a horse designed by committee.
>> That is >>the real reason why Opteron is going to kill Itanium
>
> I doubt that.
If history teaches us anything...
-- Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +55 (11) 5685 2219 Av Sgto Geraldo Santana, 1100 6/71 +55 (11) 5686 9607 04.674-000 São Paulo, SP BRASIL http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/Received on Thu May 06 2004 - 18:06:39 CEST