At 07:42 PM 2/7/00 +1100, Chris wrote:
>Don Baccus wrote:
>
>> It's not ALL that bad, my earlier comments were
>> partly tongue in cheek.
><grumble> I think they're pretty bad. I did start reading from the
>beginning, even reading the definitions and there are many things that
>are not clear to me.
>If you think it's not too bad, do you care to comment on the "ONLY"
>situation?
Well, OK, I was trying to be nice. Let me put it in a way that insults
two standards committees at once:
It's no harder to read than the C++ standard.
How's that? :)
Date's primer takes potshots at it in almost every section. One way
in which the SQL standard IS worse than even your typically crummy
language standard is that it apparently is not internally consistent.
It contradicts itself in many areas, according to Date (who seems to
take real pleasure in pointing out specifics).
While all language standards have some bugs of this sort, the SQL standard
seems to be full of them.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
