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

Daniel Morgan said: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> Daniel Morgan said: >> >>>Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Mark Townsend said: >>>> >>>>>>On the other hand, Oracle did not have such excellent tools for data >>>>>>management and manipulation as external entities (neither did DB2, >>>>>>Sybase or >>>>>>Ingres for that matter so this is not an indictment of Oracle), so >>>>>> they >>>>>>chose >>>>>>a different path and created PL/SQL as a full fledged programming >>>>>>language. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I'm sure they weren't as polished as Perform and Ace, but Oracle also >>>>>had Forms (SQL*Forms) and Reporting tools (SQL*Rpt) available long >>>>>before PL/SQL became available in the engine (Oracle 7). Also >>>>> Pro*COBOL, >>>>>Pro*Fortran etc for embedded SQL. It wasn't a lack of supporting tools >>>>>that drove the development of PL/SQL. >>>> >>>> >>>>I'm not sure I'd count SQL*Report as a tool. "Waste of space", maybe, >>>>but >>>>not a tool. >>> >>>Not for its time. What were the other options available for relational >>>databases back in the 80's? >> >> Your bias is showing. By "relational databases", I assume you mean >> "Oracle", because Informix had Ace and 4GL back in the 80s, Unify had >> Accell, etc. Last time I looked (which was probably in the 90s), >> SQL*Report didn't run on anything but Oracle, and that, only badly. > > Bias? In the 80's I was doing nothing but Cobol. The point is you > criticized a tools made specifically for working with a relational > database. Doing so must be done in context. The context was that it > was pretty much the only game in town. Oh, bullshit: in the 80s, the race between Informix and Oracle was much closer than it is now. Other databases like Sybase and Unify were much more prevalent. "Only game in town", my ass. And I really tried to follow the rest of your "logic", but it made me feel like I was arguing with my ex. What exactly does your so-called "context", which is ludicrous anyway, have to do with SQL*Report being so good, that a search on Oracle's website for the product returns: Search Results For: sql*report No documents found. Oracle Suggestions: - Make sure spelling is correct. - Try more general terms. - Try a different keyword. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche "I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't get my head up my ass" - JCH "Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo" - Marco http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html sending to informix-list

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Daniel Morgan said: > >>Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> >>>Daniel Morgan said: >>> >>> >>>>Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Mark Townsend said: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>On the other hand, Oracle did not have such excellent tools for data >>>>>>>management and manipulation as external entities (neither did DB2, >>>>>>>Sybase or >>>>>>>Ingres for that matter so this is not an indictment of Oracle), so >>>>>>>they >>>>>>>chose >>>>>>>a different path and created PL/SQL as a full fledged programming >>>>>>>language. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm sure they weren't as polished as Perform and Ace, but Oracle also >>>>>>had Forms (SQL*Forms) and Reporting tools (SQL*Rpt) available long >>>>>>before PL/SQL became available in the engine (Oracle 7). Also >>>>>>Pro*COBOL, >>>>>>Pro*Fortran etc for embedded SQL. It wasn't a lack of supporting tools >>>>>>that drove the development of PL/SQL. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I'm not sure I'd count SQL*Report as a tool. "Waste of space", maybe, >>>>>but >>>>>not a tool. >>>> >>>>Not for its time. What were the other options available for relational >>>>databases back in the 80's? >>> >>>Your bias is showing. By "relational databases", I assume you mean >>>"Oracle", because Informix had Ace and 4GL back in the 80s, Unify had >>>Accell, etc. Last time I looked (which was probably in the 90s), >>>SQL*Report didn't run on anything but Oracle, and that, only badly. >> >>Bias? In the 80's I was doing nothing but Cobol. The point is you >>criticized a tools made specifically for working with a relational >>database. Doing so must be done in context. The context was that it >>was pretty much the only game in town. > > > Oh, bullshit: in the 80s, the race between Informix and Oracle was much > closer than it is now. Other databases like Sybase and Unify were much > more prevalent. "Only game in town", my ass. > > And I really tried to follow the rest of your "logic", but it made me feel > like I was arguing with my ex. What exactly does your so-called "context", > which is ludicrous anyway, have to do with SQL*Report being so good, that > a search on Oracle's website for the product returns: > > Search Results For: sql*report > > No documents found. > > Oracle Suggestions: > - Make sure spelling is correct. > - Try more general terms. > - Try a different keyword. We were talking about SQL*Reports. Now you go off into the shrubery making comparisons between Informix and Oracle and then a search of Oracle's web site for a tool that has been obsolete for more than a decade. From this, and your use of an obscenity I can only conclude you have nothing of substance to say in response to my post: So be it. I personally think all of Oracle's reporting solutions are horrible. But when SQL*Reports was first introduced it was one the best solutions for its intended purpose. And it might interest you to know it is still in use by some major companies because it works: Among them Holland America cruise lines. I wonder how many organizations are still running circa 1980 Informix reporting tools if there were any. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)