From: Emlyn (emlyn@one.net.au)
Date: Tue Jan 23 2001 - 18:22:27 MST
Chris Rasch wrote:
> James Rogers wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Samantha wrote:
> > > I have refused to learn PL/SQL or SQL*Plus any other single db vendor
> > > proprietary language. The world does not need this and I certainly
> > > don't. I don't mind learning a specialized language for database if
it
> > > works on all vendor's products of a particular class. I occassionally
> > > learn just enough to write an adaptor to something of my own invention
> > > that is more general. But I believe I do my customers and employers a
> > > disservice if I write their business logic directly in some vendor
> > > proprietary language.
>
> PostgreSQL, currently one of the best open source databases, also
> incorporates
> pg/sql, a procedural language very similar in syntax to PL/SQL. (From
what
> I
> understand from other's reports--I haven't used it myself.) I would
expect
> that PostgreSQL will improve even more in the couple of years, as a new
> company (GreatBridge) got $35 M to devote to developing/market PostgreSQL.
> Learning PL/SQL, therefore, need not restrict you to using Oracle
products.
>
> Chris Rasch
>
>
A point that I think needs making.... learning a computer language shouldn't
be seen as a cost. Once you've learned enough of them, each new one is very
easy to add. Most of them fall into the procedural or basic OO camps, and
with notable exceptions, once you've seen one you've seen them all.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:05:16 MST