Re: What is Informix SQL for?

Path: emory!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!gravel From: wiseacre@tom_tom.com Newsgroups: comp.databases.informix Summary: Heavens no, its fall now Message-ID: <1991Oct7.182233.25431@sequent.com> Date: 7 Oct 91 18:22:33 GMT References: <1991Oct06.220851.8889@osh3.OSHA.GOV> Sender: Joe Mama (The Creep From Jeep) Organization: Secret Disorder Of The Design Profits Posted: Mon Oct 7 11:22:33 1991 In article <1991Oct06.220851.8889@osh3.OSHA.GOV> chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: >We have Informix SQL 2.10 running on an SCO SysV.3.2.2 system. What I'd >like to know is: Why would anybody buy Informix SQL alone? > A. Because they don't know any better B. Because they know something you don't >IMHO, the ace report writer is not quite enough to do everything you >would want to do with reports. The perform screen handler is awful. >And the RDSQL language, while nice for what it does, does not allow you >to generate real applications. > >The agency standard here for *nix systems is Informix. With previous >versions they had ace, informer, perform, etc. But they also had the >C-ISAM libraries which made the whole thing useful. When they bought >SQL they didn't get ESQL/C or anything else. The addition of ESQL/C or 4gl (for an additional revenue enhancing fee) will make the product complete. There are also several other vendors that take the base products and create their own interface environs for them. If you look at it as a core product upon which to build using additional tools (of which there are many available) then it may make more sense. And one can do an *considerable* ammount of things just using the std product and the tool rich *nix environ, a lot more than you might think. I've built a complete application *maintenence* environment outside of a 4gl application using simple isql/ace with liberal ammounts of sh and one .25 cent C program that interfaces with email, upgrades a production system version from a developement version across machines, and generates application consistancy reports. > >There doesn't seem to be enough here to make aa "real application". Why >would anybody buy this product without ESQL/C or C-ISAM? Why would RDS >sell it this way? Am I missing something? Don "but then I don't know any better" Bolton