Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!unify!dgh From: dgh@unify.UUCP (David Harrington) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: RDBMS sux Message-ID: <1244@unify.UUCP> Date: 13 Nov 89 16:58:27 GMT References: <860@anasaz.UUCP> <881@anasaz.UUCP> <16647@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <888@anasaz.UUCP> Reply-To: dgh@unify.UUCP (David Harrington) Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, CA, USA Lines: 21 In article <888@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: > >The problem is that we are trying to base our product on a >multivendor standard, and that forces use to use SQL. There are lots >of better solutions around to our problems, but they are not >standard. It is the standard (explicit, or implicit by what >is available) that concerns me. > Accell/SQL, the 4GL and applications generator form Unify, is the standard you want. It will let you do all the NEXT RECORD processing you have been talking about in this discussion, and it will run your application on all the databases that have been discussed here. Accell/SQL's 4GL isn't SQL, but if you need SQL Unify and every other database have that, too. With it you get performance AND SQL functionality, not to mention database independance. David Harrington Director, Accell Development Unify Corp.