Re: Unknown SQL

In comp.databases.theory Carl Rosenberger <carl_at_db4o.com> wrote:
: What are you more effective with?
: - a language that you have been working with for 5 years, knowing all the
: bugs and special tricks?
: - a language that you use for the first time?
: There always is a first time.

Under your logic, we should cease all learning, since 'first time' costs are apparently not amoritzed across many projects.

Fundamental fact- a programmer who learns many languages and tools will have a better mental toolkit than one who does not. I'm not telling you to code your system in a dozen languages in once; just to have people that know how. Why is that hard to digest?

:> Look at your business card - does it say "Java Programmer" or "Hacker"?  

: I would take "Java Programmer" as an insult and "Hacker" as a compliment.

Yes, that was the point. Are you a monkey; trained for one language, or a master of many tools for a wide scope of problems?

:> I would also call foul on your assertion that additional methods :> complicates your business.  

: They sure do, if they are not necessary.

Defining necessary is such a fun game on Friday afternoons...

:> I believe the other poster said "don't use a
:> hammer on screws"; and with only 1 approach you must be using hammers on
:> just about everything, ne?
 

: I am very sure that I did not post a statement like "SQL is unnecessary".

I've read several pages of them.

: The problem is:
: Since human ressources are very scarce, we get people writing programs that
: aren't even "Java Programmers".
 

: I have seen the development of complex SQL frameworks by people with no idea
: about all the flavours of multi-user-problems that can arise.

Yes, we have all seen incompetence in many places. That's why I encourage the use of multiple perspective and skills; it defrays some disasters. Why are you opposed to such? Moreover, wher ein the SQL standard is it said that multi-user-problems are restricted to SQL alone?? User concurrency is a hard problem, it is found everywhere.

: The locking- and isolation-level-behaviour of some very well reputed
: "industry standard" databases lets me question, if even the development of
: those base-technology products is done by "C programmers" or "Hackers":
: - Microsoft Access (some people say, you can't call it a database) has some
: very nice concurrency bugs.

You can't really call that a database. At least, its lack of ACID properties would make it fail SQL compat.

: - Using Oracle in "serializable" isolation level, you are bound to get
: bombed out with exceptions.

You boggle my mind and disturb my lunch. I have no idea what you are talking about; I am quite happily using Oracle in SERIALIZABLE mode; what does 'bombed out' even mean?

: - SAP likes to use pessimistic locking for documents. If someone gos for a
: lunch break after starting to edit, the rest of the company can wait for his
: return, to regain modification access for locked records.

Yeah.....quite a few DBs do that, OO, R, H, whatever...

: I have come across quite a few locking problems in the past, where a
: "record-by-record" modification of data was more effective than a single
: UPDATE statement, because the statement failed in 99% of the time due to
: locked records.

Sounds like an interesting deadlock in your application. You might have more luck identifying the race conditions for your data.

: "Using a hammer on screws" for sure is the wrong way. The IT industry is
: exactly doing that by using SQL for objects. Looking at the posting traffic
: in comp.lang.java.databases, I get the idea that very few people know at
: all, that there are alternatives.

You have proved nothing for or against any DB type -- all your technical arguments in this post deal with locking systems; a question wholly unrelated to how data is visualized.
First you complain about learning new tools; then about the technical incompetence of many programmers; following up with some complaints on locking systems (some vague, some obvious); deciding that ignoring the locking system works best for you; and then wrap it all up by blaming the mess of SQL. What kind of magic wand would you have us buy? And can I have 3 wishes? Received on Sat Jul 21 2001 - 20:01:53 CEST