From: Alfredo Novoa on
> It is possible to write a database management system with an SQL
>interface using any general purpose programming language. It is not
>possible to implement a general purpose programming language in SQL.

Why not?

It is perfectly possible. SQL has a procedural part.

Any program coded in a general purpose programming language might be
replicated in SQL with a similar code size, but if you want to get the
same result of a single SQL statement using a general purpose language
you might need many thousands of code lines.


From: Alfredo Novoa on
>> However, that is probably where 99.99% of the usage lies.

>I suppose that you are talking about your usage of SQL. In an average
>enterprise application, non-persitence features like queries,
>transactions, referential integrity, caching, etc, are heavily used.

In well designed Information Systems all the business rules are
enforced by the DBMS.

Referential integrity is only a little part of data integrity, and all
data integrity must be enforced by the DBMS.


From: Alfredo Novoa on

>The reason why CRUD work is given to junior developers is the fact that
>using OO design, CRUD applications are very bloated. If RAD tools were
>used instead, the same work would be done in a few minutes, saving a
>lot of money instead of hiring an army of (junior) developers.

But consultants don't want to save the customer's money, they want to
make money, and the more customer's money they waste, the more money
they get.


From: Dmitry A. Kazakov on
On 24 Jan 2006 13:11:52 -0800, Mikito Harakiri wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On 23 Jan 2006 17:28:12 -0800, Mikito Harakiri wrote:
>>> Patrick May wrote:
>>>> The most common language for manipulating tables is SQL and
>>>> it is not as powerful as general purpose OO languages.
>>> There are two incorrect assertions here:
>>> 1. What power do you have in mind, computational power? Then you made
>>> it sound like it is OO that added more power, while in fact procedural
>>> programming without object extensions is as powerful as procedural
>>> programming with them.
>> This is true. It cannot be answered without software metrics or an
>> equivalent. Under power, abstraction power is meant. Which is quite
>> difficult to measure. In my view a measure could be the type system, i.e.
>> the ladder value -> type -> types set -> types sets set ... and
>> completeness of each footstep*. Others use nGL hierarchy.
> Well, what about extensible DBMS engines, where you can add new type
> definitions?

Then I would say that the corresponding language is more powerful than SQL.

Dmitry A. Kazakov
From: frebe on
> But consultants don't want to save the customer's money,
> they want to make money, and the more customer's money
> they waste, the more money they get.

Yes, I know. Sometimes I have a feeling that we are facing the same
situation as before the introduction of robots in the automotive
industry. The workers (programmers) are so worried to loose their work,
so they find any possible arguments why robots (RAD components) can't
be used.

Not to mention what would happen to all "object mentor" companies, if
it suddenly was easy to develop enterprise applications and nobody
needed to pay an expensive mentor to help them using EJB without
getting unbelivable bad performance.

Fredrik Bertilsson