Mike Owens wrote: > On 11 Sep 2006 21:35:28 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mike Owens wrote: > > > On 11 Sep 2006 18:23:50 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Can you run your car on diesel fuel? > > > > > > > > Why not? > > > > > > > > Because your car's specification says to use gasoline? > > > > > > > > If your car has been designed to run on diesel, you shouldn't > > > > be saying it has gasoline engine. Duh. > > > > > > No but you can still call it a car with an engine, just as SQLite is a > > > SQL database, with an SQL engine. > > > > Seperate the data from the engine and what have you got? > > Data with dynamic typing. Data that can't be migrated to > > a "real" SQL database because you'll get type mismatches > > when strings are inserted into numeric fields. The type affinity > > kluge won't help there, will it? > > Did you even read my original post? Or did you just completely miss the point? > > > It's not the job of the System Test Engineer to design things. > > It's his job to find fault with everything. I just happen to be very > > good at finding faults with things. > > And apparently not very good at providing any constructive solutions. > > > But no one appreciates my finding those faults. > > No one appreciates the tone in which you report these alleged faults, > necessarily agrees with the faults that you find, nor elected you > system test engineer of the SQLite project. > > > > It calls for other things that many databases don't implement or > > > altogether violate as well, so what? Show me how both MS SQL's T-SQL > > > and Oracle's PL/SQL procedure languages are so standards compliant > > > that you can use the same procedure code in both databases. You can't > > > -- precisely because they ignore or outright violate parts of the > > > standard as well. What's your position on that? Do some Googling and > > > you can easily find 18 ways that Oracle's PL/SQL deviates from the > > > standard. And T-SQL is plainly nowhere close. > > > > And how many of those systems use dynamic typing? > > And how many conform to the standard? > > > Name one where the documentation claims the SQL Language > > Specification is a bug. > > Name one that conforms to the standard. > > > And a lot of people go to chiropractors. And chiropractors are > > nice intelligent people with degrees. And the therapy provided > > does good. > > > > Nevertheless, the theory on which it's based is quackery. > > To use your specious analogy, it represents another way of doing > things, which you admit yourself works. That's your justification for > calling Richard Hipp a crackpot?
What was Richard Hipp's justification for slandering the writers of the SQL Language Specification? > > > > It's clear. You're just way too smart for SQLite. > > > > Did you see my solution to Rick Shepard's problem in the > > thread "Parsing String, Dictionary Lookups, Writing to > > Database Table"? > > The point being? -- you can write Python code and feel entitled to > condescending and rude? Is there anything more rude than describling the SQL Language Specification as a bug that needs to be fixed? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
