Re: ODBC

Thomas Nimstad writes > Baldvin Hansson <baldvnh@centrum.is> writes: > >clawton@mailhub.tfs.com (Chris Lawton) wrote: > >> We're about to start a new project, and we're interested in ODBC. > > We planned to use ODBC instead of Btrieve. BAAAAD Move! 180 Degr. turn > > right into the arms of Btrieve after only two months in ODBC HELL! > > Well, IMHO, that had nothing to do with ODBC ! It was probably the > difficulties you came across when using a SQL based language instead > of a record based (out-of-date) format. In do not agree with this. Object data bases are much closer to record based databases in terms of hierarchy, networks and object (record) retreival and update. I beleive that SQL is a technology that has served its purpose and is rapidly becoming obsolete. Typically 90 to 95 percent of data base access using SQL is simple record retreival and update. Yet to do this with SQL is highly inefficient and cumbersome in my experience. Theo theo@rascal.co.za