Re: Sybase buys Powerbuilder - Is Oracle Dead?

In article <CzzJD0.7Ir_at_sybase.com>, <David.Heller_at_sybase.com> wrote:
>
>If you Oracle users and fans are going to crosspost to the Sybase group, be
>prepared for corrections and critique.
>
>How are Oracle stored procedure calls more flexible than Sybase's? Can you
>give some examples?
>
>I was told that Oracle stored procedures, can only return a single row. Is
>this true? Sybase stored procedures can return multiple rows (without
>resorting to temp tables or other workarounds). Do you really consider the
>ability to return only a single row MORE flexible? The most important point of
>relational database operations is, IMHO, working with sets of rows, not row at
>a time processing.

Since you are trying to pick nits... Sybase uses a very specific language built around SQL 89 standards, while Oracle uses a pretty non-specific language and the whole thing is based on SQL 92 standards. That is what I meant by more flexibility -- to some of us out here, adherence to standards is important.

AND, I apologize. When I posted my response, I was not aware that it was being crossposted to the Sybase group, so it was not as though I INSISTED on doing anything.

And, since you seem to work for the company, when are you guys finally going to get row-level locking? Or like adhering to any kind of recent standards, is that not important?

-- 
replies to:  hack_at_netcom.com
Disclaimer:  the opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect any known standards of thought and may not make any
sense whatsoever...