Re: Senior Oracle DBA now Learning InformixbyRequestofCompany
> >DA Morgan said: > > Then why all the criticism of PL/SQL being clunky. > >Because it's not relational. > >-- >Bye now, >Obnoxio Since I'm the one who said that PL/SQL is clunky... It is clunky. Ok, all SPLs are pretty clunky because they weren't really well thought out. I used the example of looping structures because its something that is very important. I also used the example of calling procedures and functions aka "subprograms" from within a package. Why these? Because at the time these SPLs were invented, there was a language called C. C was invented circa '72 (That was the year of the first edition of K&R.) C's looping structures were more elegant and provided more deterministic results. (You could exit the looping structure from either the top or the bottom.) In Oracle, you can place the end condition anywhere in the code. So, while this "elegance" issue is lost on most, its a clear example of what happens when you kludge a language together. To be fair, we can point to a gaff made by Informix. Its called "New Era". It was written by people who really didn't grok OO languages at the time. So. Please don't try to defend Oracle's PL/SQL. -Gumby _________________________________________________________________ Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces friends module. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > >> >> DA Morgan said: >> > Then why all the criticism of PL/SQL being clunky. >> >> Because it's not relational. >> >> -- >> Bye now, >> Obnoxio > > Since I'm the one who said that PL/SQL is clunky... > > It is clunky. > > Ok, all SPLs are pretty clunky because they weren't really well thought > out. Seems a bit more even-handed a statement. > I used the example of looping structures because its something that is > very important. > I also used the example of calling procedures and functions aka > "subprograms" from within a package. > > Why these? > Because at the time these SPLs were invented, there was a language > called C. C was invented circa '72 (That was the year of the first > edition of K&R.) > > C's looping structures were more elegant and provided more deterministic > results. > (You could exit the looping structure from either the top or the > bottom.) In Oracle, you can place the end condition anywhere in the code. > > So, while this "elegance" issue is lost on most, its a clear example of > what happens when you kludge a language together. People can write terrible code in C just as easily as with any SPL. And I might qualify as something as an expert on the subject which explains, in part, why I no longer write C. <g> One can also write elegant code in pretty much anything other than MS BASIC. <g> > To be fair, we can point to a gaff made by Informix. Its called "New > Era". It was written by people who really didn't grok OO languages at > the time. > > So. Please don't try to defend Oracle's PL/SQL. I wasn't so much defending PL/SQL as challenging the implication that there were any more elegant SPLs out there. One might say we, well at least the two of us, have now reached a point of consensus. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org
> >Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > >> > >> DA Morgan said: > >> > Then why all the criticism of PL/SQL being clunky. > >> > >> Because it's not relational. > >> > >> -- > >> Bye now, > >> Obnoxio > > > > Since I'm the one who said that PL/SQL is clunky... > > > > It is clunky. > > > > Ok, all SPLs are pretty clunky because they weren't really well thought > > out. > >Seems a bit more even-handed a statement. > Yes, however the point is that while most SPLs are less than elegant, Oracle's PL/SQL is the the worst of the worst. > > I used the example of looping structures because its something that is > > very important. > > I also used the example of calling procedures and functions aka > > "subprograms" from within a package. > > > > Why these? > > Because at the time these SPLs were invented, there was a language > > called C. C was invented circa '72 (That was the year of the first > > edition of K&R.) > > > > C's looping structures were more elegant and provided more deterministic > > results. > > (You could exit the looping structure from either the top or the > > bottom.) In Oracle, you can place the end condition anywhere in the >code. > > > > So, while this "elegance" issue is lost on most, its a clear example of > > what happens when you kludge a language together. > >People can write terrible code in C just as easily as with any SPL. And >I might qualify as something as an expert on the subject which explains, >in part, why I no longer write C. <g> > You missed the point you dolt! Its not a question of what you can do with the language, but the language itself. Do they bother to teach language theory anymore? >One can also write elegant code in pretty much anything other than MS >BASIC. <g> > Its the language constructs that are substandard. > > To be fair, we can point to a gaff made by Informix. Its called "New > > Era". It was written by people who really didn't grok OO languages at > > the time. > > > > So. Please don't try to defend Oracle's PL/SQL. > >I wasn't so much defending PL/SQL as challenging the implication that >there were any more elegant SPLs out there. > Wrong. Each SPL is definitely different. However, thats why you now have Java in the engine as an SPL. ;-) _________________________________________________________________ Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview