Re: Early and late binding.

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 22:48:17 +0100
Message-ID: <43d2abc7$0$11063$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

David Cressey wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:

>>In prolog there is no difference. That is the other extreme.

>
> In Lisp also, there is no difference. A list can be constructed as data,
> and then evaluated as process.
> This is particularly useful in automatic programming and/or automatic
> debugging.
>

>>In SQL itself you can can mix DDL and DML, if you so decide.
>>Some applications do. The times I saw that mix used I did not like it,
>>and could trace it down to poor design. Maybe this is necessarily so,
>>maybe not. Thoughts?

>
> It depends.
>
> Some DDL, like CREATE INDEX or DROP INDEX, has relatively little consequence
> (except for performance). It wouldn't be necessarily a "bad thing" (tm) to
> put these operations into the stream of end-of month processing, intermixed
> with ordinary DML.

I'm trying to think of situations where this might be useful - but I agree it doesn't qualify as a "bad thing" (tm).

> Also, if the underlying information requirements, or the known part thereof,
> is a moving target, then DDL is called for. This moves into the domain of
> mountain man's evolving schema. If however, the information requirements
> are static, and the application is constantly doing DDL to reflect ongoing
> routine transactions, something is probably wrong somewhere.

My gut feeling to. Is there more to it than just gut feeling, though? Received on Sat Jan 21 2006 - 15:48:17 CST