Re: Re: Why there is no controlfile in Informix like Oracle ?

Some _personal_ comentaries below: -----Original Message----- >From: "Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.net> >Subject: Re: Why there is no controlfile in Informix >like Oracle ? > >Arguing that Oracle is superior to Informix >because it has PL/SQL instead of program development >tools is akin to telling me that emacs sucks >because you cannot do .<return> to repeat a command. I think a very few people dare to argue that Oracle is superior to Informix just because of how PL/SQL compares to SPL or any other tool. I'm certainly not one of these, but I think that if Oracle was compared with Informix by comparing PL/SQL with SPL; Oracle blow out Informix... What I want to mean is that SPL is very limited in functionality. I've seen people trying to port procedures who runs on oracle/sql-server to informix having a _terrible time_... I haven't done the contrary myself but I think it possibly shouldn't be that hard. Take dbaccess for example, and I agree that it is a good tool and it do _nice_ things like automating jobs, but to me dbaccess is plain old and limited in functionality... just look at the help (Contrl-W) of the Query, a lot is missing from there. You have to have the manuals or the pdfs at hand. You're limited to 80 characters long... (I might be lost here), you can't run a partially selected query (you have to use comments), you have to abandon dbaccess to see the plan of a query, you can't do anything a part of SQL (It could be argued that the query menu is just for that) like having variables, or do procedural thing like fetching from a cursor (you have to use SPL for this), you can't visually debug SQL nor a stored procedure, you are limited to text mode, etc... etc... You can compare online 5.x dbaccess with IDS 9.x dbaccess and they are almost exactly the same tool, the only differences are in the new features of 9, while this is good in terms of accesibility, it makes me belive a lack of interest from Informix in his days and IBM in now-days to offer a good tool to access data, I don't know DB2 but I could bet 1 buck that his dbaccess is more usefull. You just have to look at ifxsql... this (to me) plainly puts not only dbaccess (IBM-Informix too) in a big SHAME. This tool is excellent, and does a lot of things more than dbaccess do... even in native mode. Although it has some annoying drawbacks like having to run SELECT querys in separate windows than UPDATE/INSERT/DELETE querys... it shows what a good tool could be. And that's my point: To me informix tools like dbaccess are way low than the average, just functional. I appreciate the efforts behind the engine, but I've seen much behind the tools. Chucho. PD: Emacs sucks... ;) Just Joking... but I personally like vi more... I mean vi rocks! Jean Sagi jeansagi@myrealbox.com jeansagi@yahoo.com sending to informix-list

1121On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:00:17 -0400, Jean Sagi wrote: > Some _personal_ comentaries below: > > -----Original Message----- >>From: "Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.net> Subject: Re: Why there is no >>controlfile in Informix >like Oracle ? >> >>Arguing that Oracle is superior to Informix because it has PL/SQL instead of >>program development tools is akin to telling me that emacs sucks because you >>cannot do .<return> to repeat a command. > > I think a very few people dare to argue that Oracle is superior to Informix > just because of how PL/SQL compares to SPL or any other tool. > > I'm certainly not one of these, but I think that if Oracle was compared with > Informix by comparing PL/SQL with SPL; Oracle blow out Informix... What I > want to mean is that SPL is very limited in functionality. Woefully so, I agree, and your points on dbaccess are likewise valid. However, IIRC, the original posting claimed that Informix does not have any good tools for doing what it is that we do. I have to take truck with that statement. I contend that he, and you to some extent, are just trying to use the wrong tool to get the job done. I don't disagree that SPL could be a more powerful language, and perhaps should be. That its features should be available to the query processor, as others have contended, I cannot agree. The query processor is there to process queries, the query language is SQL, program control features and local variables are NOT part of the SQL language (such as it is) syntax, therefore the query processor should not have to deal SPL (or PL/SQL) programming features. For example you say that one cannot do anything apart from SQL in dbaccess such as "procedural things like fetching from a cursor (you have to use SPL for this)". This is precisely my point! It's not that the tool is lacking in this area, certainly there are other areas where I agree dbaccess is lacking, it's that you want to use the wrong tool. It's like you have a screwdriver and a nail and you are complaining that it is very hard to push the nail in with the screwdriver blade especially as the one keeps slipping off of the other. You want the screwdriver company to please make the back of the handle flat so you can use it to push the nail in more easily. After all, my shoe has a flat heal I can use to push the nail in! I am a big fan of using the right tool for the job. When I edit source, I use emacs for day-to-day code writing and editing. However, when I have to make a bulk change to the code, perhaps to change a variable name in old code to meet new naming standards, and without changing the same word in the wrong place, I resort to using vi or sed. The right tool for the job. The correct tool for procedural things like fetching from a cursor, is a procedural language. For this you should be using ESQL/C, 4GL, Perl with DBD/DBI, Java, or even <GASP> SPL for these jobs NOT complaining that Informix's SQL inplementation does not provide programming features features! As for your complaint that you have to use SPL for this, I say, "but that's the correct tool to use!", among others. This whole discussion is very much like someone who had one of those 27-in-one tools that does everything a carpenter might want to do, but nothing well, in his old shop gets a job in a new shop that has all the right single purpose tools and complains that he has to use an adz for planing, a router for making grooves, and a drill for making holes. Why can't this shop just have that darn multi-tool which has a poker attachment with a sharp edge that I could use for all three jobs. I don't get why noone else sees this. PL/SQL is a multi-tool, Informix gives us all these single purpose tools that get the job done better and faster. My very good friend is a professional cabinet maker, I am a professional database architech, programmer, and DBA. My friend has no multi-tools in his shop, wouldn't know what to do with it that he could not do better with the tools he already has and does not miss the lack. I have no PL/SQL in my shop, wouldn't know what to do with it that I could not get done as easily with the tools Informix already gives me, and do not miss the lack. > I've seen people trying to port procedures who runs on oracle/sql-server to > informix having a _terrible time_... I haven't done the contrary myself but > I think it possibly shouldn't be that hard. Granted. SPL needs work. Different problem. On hte rest below - no argument. Art S. Kagel > Take dbaccess for example, and I agree that it is a good tool and it do > _nice_ things like automating jobs, but to me dbaccess is plain old and > limited in functionality... just look at the help (Contrl-W) of the Query, a > lot is missing from there. You have to have the manuals or the pdfs at hand. > You're limited to 80 characters long... (I might be lost here), you can't > run a partially selected query (you have to use comments), you have to > abandon dbaccess to see the plan of a query, you can'''t do anything a part of > SQL (It could be argued that the query menu is just for that) like having > variables, or do procedural thing like fetching from a cursor (you have to > use SPL for this), you can't visually debug SQL nor a stored procedure, you > are limited to text mode, etc... etc... > > You can compare online 5.x dbaccess with IDS 9.x dbaccess and they are > almost exactly the same tool, the only differences are in the new features > of 9, while this is good in terms of accesibility, it makes me belive a lack > of interest from Informix in his days and IBM in now-days to offer a good > tool to access data, I don't know DB2 but I could bet 1 buck that his > dbaccess is more usefull. > > You just have to look at ifxsql... this (to me) plainly puts not only > dbaccess (IBM-Informix too) in a big SHAME. This tool is excellent, and does > a lot of things more than dbaccess do... even in native mode. Although it > has some annoying drawbacks like having to run SELECT querys in separate > windows than UPDATE/INSERT/DELETE querys... it shows what a good tool could > be. > > And that's my point: To me informix tools like dbaccess are way low than the > average, just functional. I appreciate the efforts behind the engine, but > I've seen much behind the tools. > > > Chucho. > > PD: > Emacs sucks... ;) Just Joking... but I personally like vi more... I mean vi > rocks! > > > Jean Sagi > jeansagi@myrealbox.com > jeansagi@yahoo.com > > sending to informix-list