At 00.31 08/12/2001 +1100, you wrote:

>At 01:39 PM 07-12-01 +0100, Marco Lauria wrote:
>
> >the biggest difference I noticed using SQL Server was in fact this...
> >you can copy a stored procedure in the manager
> >and execute a portion of it directly there.
> >Also at this level SQL Server allows you to declare variables
> >and use them as we do with FB in the Stored Procedure.
>
>Do you understand why this possible? If so, I hope you are not suggesting
>that IB/FB would be *improved* by SPs that are not compiled until run-time?

I am not saying this, even if SPs compiled at run time
can have for example the advantage of a new index created
after the creation of the SP...
IF I remember correctly with IB if I compile a SP before definining INDEXes
these aren't used by the SP (perhaps I am wrong).

However I am not speaking about SP.
I was saying to all that the ISQL of SQL Server, allows
to execute more statements, with various result sets
one after the other....(this is also typical of the ADO interface).
Also you have the capability of defining a series of variables,
the IF function in SQL server is more powerful and can be included in the
select statement, but this is a consequence of the multiple statement
for example

DECLARE VARIABLE test INTEGER;
SELECT type from TABLEA WHERE <BLAH BLAH> INTO :test;

if ( test = 1 ) then
begin
// BLAH BLAH
end
else
begin
// BLAH BLAH
end

If I want to do this I have to write a SP in IB
while in SQL Server I can write this in ISQL and execute it.

Also a CASE STATEMENT is another useful thing...
it's more "elegant" that 10 IF / ELSE...

but as I have not time to work on FB code,
I can only tell you that these could be good ideas....
even in this period where Borland releases version 6.5 and
we don't understand what they will do with the sources...
As Far As I Can Imagine Borland used the modified source
of the FB community.... but this is my IDEA!
If we really improve FB with new function that will be the difference
between FB and IB...
Also selling some certified versions with support packs can be another
good solution.
FB would remain free, but the customer can acquire a "stable" version
with a licensing schema that the customer can use with "his" customers.
And a support contract.

Regards
Marco
P.S. I went a bit off topic I know ;)