Subject Re: Firebird == Standard SQL ???
Author Adam
--- In, "Daniel Jimenez"
<d.jimenez@...> wrote:
> Hi Adam,
> The reasoned I was asking is because I am lazy, and I have the need to
> convert a MS SQl DB to Firebird, and I did not want to go creating
> to cater for the missing types. But more importantly, having to change
> legacy code for the new firebird DB. However the more I look into
the MS SQL
> the more issues I have found, such as using reserved words for
fields etc.
> None the less, thank you for the suggestions

With all due respect:
That is like complaining that Firefox or Safari don't seem to be
standards compliant because the CSS I wrote for Internet Explorer 6
makes things render funny when used with those browsers.

I put it to you that Firebird is much closer than SQL Server or Access
to the SQL standards. That is not to criticise Microsoft, they just
have a different development philosophy and different commercial
drivers to Firebird, and the same analogy could be fairly used against
most DBMS.

Here is the link to the SQL Conformance table for Firebird (watch the

For your case, you should read the SQL Server -> Firebird migration
guide written by Marcelo Lopez Ruiz: