Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!postgres!jas
From: jas@postgres.uucp (James Shankland)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Sybase, embedded SQL, and the library approach
Message-ID: <18938@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 30 Oct 89 18:45:32 GMT
References: <1528@esquire.UUCP> <850@anasaz.UUCP>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: jas@postgres.UUCP (James Shankland)
Organization: Postgres Research Group, UC Berkeley
Lines: 17

In article <850@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes:
>In article <1528@esquire.UUCP> rreid@esquire.UUCP ( r l reid ) writes:
>]Sybase says they feel that the library approach is superior
>]to the embedded approach....  The embedded code is for
>]me in most cases easier to write and maintain.
>
>This is one of the reasons we rejected Sybase during our
>selection process for a RDBMS on which to base our main product....

Just as SQL has become the standard relational query language,
embedded SQL seems to have become the standard relational interface
for programming languages.

Personally, I'm with Sybase on the technical merits:  I prefer the library
approach.  But the market has spoken, and the market says "embedded SQL."

jas