Re: Relationals vs. Objects Databases I

In article <15bB5KAhg8z0Ew1r_at_jbdr.demon.co.uk>, Jeremy Rickard <Jeremy_at_SPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6am1fp$hsq$1_at_pebble.ml.org>, Joel Garry
><joelga_at_pebble.ml.org> writes
>
>>>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.
>
>You sure these aren't just like chess puzzles - totally unlikely to be
>encountered in the "real game".
>

I have no patience for either. So I use languages and tools that get the job done - just like you do with <ahem> COBOL.

>I guess the people I work for are less demanding, or the databases I
>design better suited to the purpose.

No, you just ignored the requirement for embedding as part of your solution. Without that "little" caveat, your original statement that SQL is a good enough language made no sense. COBOL is an additional cost, layered product in most cases, not part of SQL. Fortunately, I've managed to avoid it for the most part since 1980. I mean, '57 Chevy's may be nice, but I wouldn't want to commute in one.

>
>--
>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!