At 09:50 AM 12/21/00 -0700, David Berg wrote:

>
>P.S. I agree that SQL is an abomination of a language. I've had a number of
>discussions with Fabian Pascal on the subject, which led me to believe that
>even Codd and Date would agree on that score. It was never intended as a
>commercial relational language.
>
>Unfortunately, it is something of a standard, and for better or worse the
>standard is lacking in many areas, not the least of which is enforcement
>(since many companies claim compliance but are only marginally "entry level"
>compliant, with three levels of compliance where's the incentive of
>companies to be fully compliant?).
>

If you follow the path of standards that your mail message followed
it goes like this:

SMTP protocol
Socket API
TCP protocol stack
PCI bus
RJ45 connector
ethernet electrical and packet
IP gateway, DNS, routing, etc etc etc

and so on. Each of these standards allow independent companies
to make equipment and software that interface completely and
mail to be delivered. You can get any number of mail clients,
ethernet boards, hubs, connectors, routers, etc.

The SQL standard is simultaneously so broad that vastly imcompatible
systems conform (see ODBC and JDBC meta data calls for a catalog
of the hundreds of sanctioned incompatibilities). You qualify
for case insensitive names, case sensitive names, nulls collated
at the end of a sort, nulls collated at the beginning of a sort.
As a standard, a piece of trash.

Almost every other standard is public. The SQL standard is
private. You can't access it the web. If you want a copy,
you have to buy it. You can't publish it.

The SQL standard is designed to be a barrier to entry for
new database companies. All of the major database companies
got their own crocks and extension grandfathered or sanctioned.

A screw conforms to a standard. SQL conforms to a screw.



Jim Starkey