Re: Why will we never see anything even remotely resembling decent standards compliance in SQL Server?
From: DrPizza (drpizza_at_anti-flash.co.uk)
Date: 04/12/04
- Next message: Jamie: "Sending Emails using CDOSYS Mail"
- Previous message: Paul Ibison: "Re: ms sql server 2000 too weak ?"
- In reply to: Aaron Bertrand [MVP]: "Re: Why will we never see anything even remotely resembling decent standards compliance in SQL Server?"
- Next in thread: Egbert Nierop \(MVP for IIS\): "Re: Why will we never see anything even remotely resembling decent standards compliance in SQL Server?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:25:18 +0100
Aaron Bertrand [MVP] wrote:
> In a Joe Celko book, it's all about standards and whoop-de-doo. In the
> real world, we have these little things called trade-offs. As no
> competent vendor has managed to pull it off, surely you must agree that
> it is a considerable undertaking to cram in all the features that would
> deem a product fully compliant. Otherwise, at least one of them would
> have done it by now!
So considerable that in the twelve years since SQL-92 was standardized they
haven't managed to move beyond entry level compliance? Please! If a tiny
outfit like Ocelot can manage it then surely MS -- with the ample resources
they have to offer -- can manage it.
ANSI SQL is in many, many areas a more expressive language than T-SQL.
*Anyone* who writes any code for SQL Server should demand standars compliance
for it, as it'll enable them to write cleaner, easier to read, easier to
maintain code.
> Personally, I'd rather that for SP3, for example, they worked on security
> issues, than adding a feature like ROW_NUMBER(). I can wait on features
> for which I already have suitable workarounds.
Judging by the ways people try to work around its absence it's not at all
clear that there is a suitable workaround available.
> And as for your previous comment about keeping existing code working not
> being important, I guess you must not have much code out there at all.
Didn't say that, though, did I? No I did not. I said it wasn't a good reason
to not change the language in order to bring it nearer in line with what the
standards say because there are better ways of solving that problem. Indeed,
SQL Server already uses such mechanisms to govern code-breaking standards
compliance issues (albeit only in a limited way).
--
char a[99999],*p=a;main(c,V)char**V;{char*v=c>0?1[V]:V;if(c)for(;(c=*v)&&93^
c;p+=!(62^c)-!(60^c),*p+=!(43^c)-!(45^c),44^c||read(0,p,1),46^c||putchar(*p)
,91^c||(v=*p?main(-1,v+1),v-1:main(0,v)),++v);else for(;c+=!(91^*v)-!(93^*v)
;++v);return v;} /* drpizza@battleaxe.net brainf*** program as argv[1] */
- Next message: Jamie: "Sending Emails using CDOSYS Mail"
- Previous message: Paul Ibison: "Re: ms sql server 2000 too weak ?"
- In reply to: Aaron Bertrand [MVP]: "Re: Why will we never see anything even remotely resembling decent standards compliance in SQL Server?"
- Next in thread: Egbert Nierop \(MVP for IIS\): "Re: Why will we never see anything even remotely resembling decent standards compliance in SQL Server?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
