Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!uunet!cimshop!davidm From: cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Asynchronous SQL Message-ID: Date: 20 Mar 90 19:46:33 GMT References: <2438@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <745@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> <3510@infmx.UUCP> <779@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> <3585@infmx.UUCP> <4990@rtech.rtech.com> <793@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> <5030@rtech.rtech.com> <5045@rtech.rtech.com> <5051@rtech.rtech.com> Sender: davidm@cimshop.UUCP Organization: Consilium Inc., Mountain View, California. Lines: 24 In-reply-to: jas@llama.rtech.UUCP's message of 19 Mar 90 17:37:33 GMT In article <5051@rtech.rtech.com> jas@llama.rtech.UUCP (Jim Shankland) writes: SQL has enough faults as a query language. Adding general-purpose programming features is unlikely to beautify it any. A general question. People doing embedded-SQL programming seem to have the most trouble with switching back and forth between the procedural system and the non-procedural system. Rather than thinking in terms of beautification, does allowing general-purpose programming features into SQL actually help the lay-programmer (as opposed to the lay-user) write better programs against the database? I'd be interested to hear from programmers working with the Sybase Transact-SQL system and whether they find it more responsive to their programming needs or they find the non-ANSI SQL aspects to be an unwanted extra learning layer. -- =================================================================== David Masterson Consilium, Inc. uunet!cimshop!davidm Mt. View, CA 94043 =================================================================== "If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"