Anthony Molinaro wrote:> Daryl,>>>>Whether you feel that is unnecessary or not, it *is* the ANSI Standard>>>>and is
thus,by definition, "how queries should be written.">>> I disagree 100%. Oracle and db2 introduced window functions
years>before> Ansi added them. Should we not have used them? It absurd to avoid using> a feature cuz it's not ansi.>
Of course it would be absurd, I have not suggested otherwise. Joins are
not a *new* feature.
> Honestly, Don't be a slave to ansi, you miss out on all the great> vendor specific functionality *that you're already
payingfor*>>>>it was added to make the *intention* of the query clearer.>>> More clearer to whom?>> Certainly not
developerswho have been working for many years> using the old syntax.>> The intention of the old syntax is perfect.
Realizethat the problem is> not the old syntax, the problem is the watered down database field> today.> I see this more
andmore with each interview I conduct looking> for dba's and developers.>
I generally agree with your assessment of the state of database
knowledge (particularly re developers). It is, however, the reality we
live in.
[snipped nostalgia and back-patting]
> I've never worked in a place that used ANSI only syntax and I've never> had a problem with clarity nor any developers
I'veworked with.> So, I don't at all get what you're saying...
> Old style is short and sweet and perfect.> Ansi dumbed it down, that's the bottom line.> And for people who've been
developingfor sometime,> It's wholly unnecessary.>
Well, perhaps you will one day and a developer will hose your server
with a "accidental" cross join and then you will understand.
But hopefully not. ;)
> Regards,> Anthony>
[rest snipped]
--
Daryl
Director of Technology
(( Brandywine Asset Management ) ( "Expanding the Science of Global Investing" ) (
http://www.brandywine.com ))
