Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 22:16:41 -0500
Reply-To: "Laconic2" <laconic2@comcast.net>
From: "Laconic2" <laconic2@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory
References: <hqd6kc.4go.ln@mercury.downsfam.net> <JpmdnTK5C9X_WvrcRVn-rA@comcast.com> <irs8kc.9nv.ln@mercury.downsfam.net> <WLT9d.150812$wV.77513@attbi_s54> <UOqdnTl6jvdUt_XcRVn-hw@comcast.com> <dE%9d.363785$Fg5.239889@attbi_s53>
Subject: Re: 4 the FAQ: Are Commercial DBMS Truly Relational?
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 23:16:22 -0400
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
Message-ID: <faSdnZ8LhvsENPXcRVn-ug@comcast.com>
Lines: 35
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.60.68.134
X-Trace: sv3-r3EQbCDyTig/oALvsotHqLT4JT130ljmmK/69MlAH+uv5DYgfL1aozVttiO5G8vy/OTwHdxOxGmWPrS!CVnL2MQnDgZs5AcY13SDeKmjW9iMS6lzeHflGrDTyA66P3tpEcscbbBNTwQn
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.19
Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.theory:26715


"Marshall Spight" <mspight@dnai.com> wrote in message
news:dE%9d.363785$Fg5.239889@attbi_s53...
> It's just appallingly verbose, don't you think? I compare mathematical
> notation, (which is probably too brief...) with SQL, and it's quite
> enlightening.

No, I actually think it's too terse.  Must be different points of view.


> I think a good syntax is a worthwhile endevour in and of itself. I
> wouldn't say it's as important as good semantics, but it's probably
> *almost* as important.

If I had to make a choice, I'd choose semantics too.  But I don't see it as
an "either/or" kind of thing.

> Every time I get an error from JDBC like "Error in SQL syntax: so such
> column 'CutsomerId' in table 'Customers'" at runtime, I want to retch.
> Such a construct shouldn't compile.

Agreed.

But you don't get that behaviour with precompilers.  I think I've already
remarked about that to you.
The precompiler validates the SQL syntax, and validates table and column
names at precompile time.

Of course, if you generate dynamic SQL at runtime, now you're stuck with
error detection at  runtime.  But if all your SQL is hard coded,  you're not
stuck.