Re: Object-oriented SQL statements

On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 7:43 am, Nis Jørgensen <n..._at_superlativ.dk> wrote:
>
> >>Bob Badour skrev:
>
> >>>Zorro wrote:
>
> >>>>Please comment on the approach illustrated in :
>
> >>>>http://www.zhmicro.com/Database.pdf
>
> >>>>On July 19 this was posted at comp.object.
>
> >>>Typical nonsense from comp.object on how to cripple a DBMS by forcing it
> >>>through a low-level procedural language and a profoundly limited interface.
>
> >>That would be my guess as well, without following the link :-)
>
> > LOL
>
> > Skimmed over it. It doesn't support joins. You can only query one
> > table at a time.
>
> > This has become the first question I ask when I see a new
> > approach: what does join support look like?
>
> > Marshall
>
> Good points, it looks like one has to re-invent the relops for oneself.
> Successful consultants usually see the financial advantage in that.
> Yet they say they have a happy marriage which confines them to the SQL
> standard. I predict divorce at some point. It also says they have a
> verifiable conceptual model. What does it mean to verify the conceptual
> model of SQL? Looks like they are just throwing words around, like most
> vendors, they might change all the words tomorrow and still sell the
> same product. The selling point might be that it would be just as
> coherent as it was yesterday, namely not at all. There seems to be no
> lack of buyers who consider that an advantage.
>
> Does the OP somehow qualify as SPAM, eg., the database equivalent of
> scientology?
>
> p

I just wrote off the original post as spam as soon as I saw it. More retro-grade rubbish. No wonder people like pascal just give up. Received on Mon Jul 23 2007 - 21:59:25 CEST