Re: Relationals vs. Objects Databases I

In article <2RiBjIAGjkz0EwWz_at_jbdr.demon.co.uk>, Jeremy Rickard <Jeremy_at_SPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6al6n4$gc3$1_at_pebble.ml.org>, Joel Garry
><joelga_at_pebble.ml.org> writes
>
>>Uh, if you have to embed it to get the functionality, then the SQL isn't
>>very complete, is it?
>
>Oh, alright then! SQL isn't a complete programming language. It can't
>draw pretty pictures or play pretty sounds (unless perhaps you write
>UDF's for it in another language).

If all it were lacking were draw and play capabilities, it wouldn't be a bad language.

>
>What it is is a relational database manipulation language. Within that
>context it is complete or as near complete as makes no difference. We
>often use cursors for a variety of reasons, but you can perform all your
>updates using set-based SQL if you really want (but there are
>drawbacks).

Overly restrictive context. Out here in the real world, it winds up as puzzles in database magazines because it is so difficult to apply to real problems.

>
>--
>Jeremy Rickard
>
>(To email, change "SPAM" to "jbdr" in address.)

-- 
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest
jgarry@eiq.com                           http://www.informationquest.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry
"See your DBA?"  I AM the @#%*& DBA!