Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Implicit vs. Explicit Joins |
---|---|
Author | Ann W. Harrison |
Post date | 2005-04-13T16:55:11Z |
David Johnson wrote:
I'd suggest it's time for some re-education in the shop. If it were
just aesthetics, or even aesthetics and performance, then there might be
some argument. The problem is that the results of mixed-syntax queries
are non-intuitive - which is to say not what the programmer expected.
COBOL. And, contrary to general opinion, even COBOL programmers can
learn new tricks. A good book on clicker-training for dogs is a
starting place.
Cheers,
Ann
>I'm less of an authoritarian than my spouse, the BBW, but in this case,
> To be fair, a lot depends on your shop.
>
> In our shop, most of our programmers (about 150 to 200) get confused if
> you use the full syntax.
I'd suggest it's time for some re-education in the shop. If it were
just aesthetics, or even aesthetics and performance, then there might be
some argument. The problem is that the results of mixed-syntax queries
are non-intuitive - which is to say not what the programmer expected.
> But then, most of them are COBOL'ersThen the full syntax ought to please them - it's nearly as wordy as
COBOL. And, contrary to general opinion, even COBOL programmers can
learn new tricks. A good book on clicker-training for dogs is a
starting place.
> On the occasions that we do see outer joins, weI guess banning outer joins is an alternative...
> see a lot of your last example ("terrible").
Cheers,
Ann