At 22/11/2002 05:35 PM, you wrote:

>I have read somewhere (www.dbdebunk.com)that they have
>put pointers
>inside sql 99 .Bleah Pointers
>And they did an OOsql .What OO have to do with
>RDBMS i don't know ? I want integrity from the
>database
>not pointers ,compilers ?? inheritance .(Yes that is
>cool but not useful i tested in postgres where you can
>iherit one table from another)

I just read about it in the SQL-99 standards, but the standards mention
that the inheritance shouldn't be more than one table down. But, I agree
with you that it's cool, but not useful.

>Shure the sql is a bad RDB implementation of ibm
>(tm)(r). They kicked the language proposed by Codd
>Look where whe are now ...
>Is sad that SQL is so impotent so we need another
>languges to write what : functions???!!!!!

For what SQL is used most of the time, an elaborate language for stored
procedures or triggers is, in my opinion, unnecessary.

>My god even pascal was better on this .

And, for more elaborate functions, that's what I would use, but I wouldn't
want it incorporated in the RDBMS.

>OO is bad for databases .

I agree. I did look into it in the past(3-4 years ago) and didn't really
like what I saw.


Daniel Rail
Senior System Engineer
ACCRA Group Inc. (www.accra.ca)
ACCRA Med Software Inc. (www.accramed.ca)