Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pyrdc!pyrnj!rutgers!columbia!garfield!andy
From: andy@garfield (Andy Lowry)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Informix 4gl - no integer arithmetic???
Message-ID: <5876@columbia.edu>
Date: 12 Sep 88 17:49:50 GMT
References: <466@pan.UUCP> <410@infmx.UUCP> <468@pan.UUCP>
Sender: news@columbia.edu
Reply-To: andy@garfield.UUCP (Andy Lowry)
Organization: Columbia University CS Department
Lines: 60

In article <468@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes:
>In article <410@infmx.UUCP> aland@infmx.UUCP (Dr. Scump) writes:
>>In article <466@pan.UUCP>, jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes:
>>> 
>>>   let i = 630 / 100 * 60
>>> 
>>> Running this program produces a result of 378!!!
>>
>>This is similar to C's promotion of types.  For example, try
>>
>>    printf ("In C, we get %d\n", intvar = (630.0 / 100 * 60));
>
>WHAT?!?  Does anyone, anywhere, other than the author of this piece of filth,
>think that this C statement is the same as the 4gl statement above it?
>...
>>This is consistent with the documentation.  
>Big deal.
>jw
Is there anybody else out there who shares my sense of outrage at
Jamie Watson's message here?  As I see it, here's what happened:

  1. Watson posted a message to the net describing some Informix 4gl
  behavior that he (my apologies, Jamie, if you're a woman...) found
  confusing and inconsistent with the documentation.

  2. Dr. Scump from Informix posted a detailed explanation of what was
  going on along with specific references to the documentation where
  the arithmetic rules are defined.

  3. Watson blasted Scump!

I don't get it, and I sent a personal message to Watson suggesting
that an apology to Scump is in order.  The result: even if net
etiquette did not prevent me from quoting Watson's response to my
message, common rules of decency certainly do.

The reason this is upsetting enough for me to post to the net is that
there has been a concerted effort in past postings to get vendors to
participate in this forum.  One advantage of such participation is
that people like Jamie Watson can often have problems with products or
documentation quickly resolved, as was the case here.  I haven't seen
the Informix documentation and cannot comment on Watson's contention
that it is poorly organized and very difficult to use.  Their rules of
arithmetic may also be very poorly designed.  But I doubt that Dr.
Scump is personally responsible in either case.  His net response was,
however, quick, and more than adequate in that it clearly explained
the observed behavior and enabled Watson (or any other reader) to
avoid similar problems in the future.  I would hope that Dr. Scump
also notified the people responsible for documentation at Informix
that this particular item had caused confusion and should be more
carefully explained (or redesigned) in future releases.

In any case, I certainly hope that Jamie Watson never again is
confused over anything he encounters, because I doubt that many on
this net would be quick to offer him help after this episode.  And I
hope that Dr. Scump, his colleagues at Informix, and his peers working
for other vendors will continue to participate in comp.databases and
not be put off by Watson's absurd ravings.

-Andy Lowry