Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cimshop!davidm From: cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: A few "fundamental" questions concerning SQL Message-ID: Date: 12 Jul 90 17:34:51 GMT References: <10632@chaph.usc.edu> <1990Jul8.034532.14777@sclcig.uucp> Sender: davidm@cimshop.UUCP Distribution: comp Organization: Consilium Inc., Mountain View, California. Lines: 24 In-reply-to: gsn@sclcig.uucp's message of 8 Jul 90 03:45:32 GMT In article <1990Jul8.034532.14777@sclcig.uucp> gsn@sclcig.uucp (Georg Nikodym) writes: In article <10632@chaph.usc.edu> ajayshah@aludra.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: > So why is SQL defined the way it is? 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. Well, picking on the way IBM does (or doesn't do) things can become a national pasttime. If you want some fairly complete reasons for hating SQL (along with the current, general state of relational database systems), check out the new book by Dr. Codd entitled "The Relational Model for Database Management Version 2". Be warned, though, a lot of it reads like Dr. Codd has had his feelings hurt by the lack of enthusiam within the community for his relational model ideals. -- =================================================================== 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!"