Path: utzoo!censor!comspec!sclcig!gsn
From: gsn@sclcig.uucp (Georg Nikodym)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: A few "fundamental" questions concerning SQL
Message-ID: <1990Jul8.034532.14777@sclcig.uucp>
Date: 8 Jul 90 03:45:32 GMT
References: <10632@chaph.usc.edu>
Organization: Southam Business Information & Communications Group
Lines: 30

In article <10632@chaph.usc.edu> ajayshah@aludra.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>
>At the outset, let me say i'm a total novice to databases; i've
>just done a little work with databases and was curious.  So here
>goes:
>
>      I've tried writing SQL queries and found it to be
>      tremendously irritating, mainly because it's nonprocedural.
(stuff deleted)
>      So why is SQL defined the way it is?
>
>      Is it supposed to be some kind of standard which imposes
>      restrictions on the internal organisation of a RDBMS, so
>      that no "real-life" queries would use SQL?  Or is it just a

That's the IBM way, make something really ugly, terrible and cumbersome
and it magically becomes a standard.  sigh

By the way, the IBM's DB2 is where SQL more or less was born.

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Georg S. Nikodym  -  (416) 442-2238                                       |
|                                                                           |
| Southam Business Information and Communications Group, Don Mills, Ontario |
| gsn@sclcig.UUCP -or- ...!uunet!attcan!telly!moore!sclcig!gsn              |
|                                                                           |
| "The floggings will continue until morale improves" -Jose Castel-Branco   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------