Roy Lyseng wrote: > > > Jay Pipes wrote: > >> Yes, things outside the standard were indeed considered (although Peter >> Gulutzan would be the expert voice on this) and AFAIK, the parts of the >> SQL standard that were reasonable were used. But...subqueries were a >> feature that was supported on 100% of other RDBMS and had practical >> uses. CLOB? It's a throwback to Oracle. What I am saying is that each >> piece of the parsed syntax should be looked at with new eyes, and not >> just "let's go with the standard". If the standard is good and >> reasonable for the audience we are targeting, cool. If not, I'm saying, >> don't worry too much about the standard. That's all. > > CLOB vs. TEXT is just a name issue, so it is not at all a big deal.
Ack on that. :) >>>> Sticking to the standard means very little to me, so -1 on this. If >>>> the >>>> standard is reasonable and pertains to modern systems, sure, fine by >>>> me, >>>> but I am not opposed to breaking standards, especially when they were >>>> made by vendors 20 or more years ago and then bolted onto to fit needs. >>>> >>>> Standards are good for portability, but in this day and age, one has to >>>> wonder what, realistically, is the likelihood of writing portable >>>> applications to run on multiple RDBMS. Standard and portable SQL is a >>>> complete myth IMHO, and applications which try to be portable suffer >>>> from poor performance by aiming at lowest common denominators. >>>> >>>> Drizzle isn't really aimed at being the database for VARs or OEMs that >>>> want a standards-compliant RDBMS on which to write some enterprise >>>> application. Instead, it aims to tackle the specific problems of the >>>> web and cloud environments. >>> Standards are not only good for portability. They also mean that a >>> developer can move from one database to another without having to learn >>> a completely new semantics. >> >> Isn't that what portability is? > > You were arguing about portable applications. My argument was that even > though you are targetting a single database, it is nice if you do not > have to learn a new syntax/semantics when picking up a new database for > your next project. Slight difference :) OK, understood. >>> Of course that does not happen in the real >>> world, but that is because of the vendors, not the standard. >> >> And it's the very same vendors which wrote the standard. > > Well I think that outer join is an exception. Both Oracle and Sybase had > outer join implementations before the standard was defined, but a > different syntax was actually selected for SQL-92. Sure, agreed. :) Cheers, Jay _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
