Re: Changing database to SQL from DDS

["M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>]

At 1/7/03 09:52 PM, you wrote:
> >   IBM telling us that they'll do something doesn't make it a good
> > decision.  So, yes, it *is* IBM's fault.
>
> Only if you believe it is a fault to comply with standards. Standards that
> IBM created and helped build. SQL came from IBM, not someplace else.
 In the IBM Midrange world DDS is the standard.  Having SQL there for 
compatibility sake for the rest of the world is moving the box in the right 
direction. This is similar to adding Java to the box and forcing us to 
abandon our current development language, just because it's the "new world 
standard."


> >   That only "proves" how (relatively) easy it would be to add the
> > functionality to DDS.  And on the outside chance that there's some
> function
> > that would not be practical syntactically to add to DDS, how
> > difficult  would it be do add embedded SQL to DDS??
>
>
> Indeed it does NOT prove any such thing. Difficult or not, there is a cost.
> Complying with standards and then retrofitting a single, obscure (to the
> rest of the world) fixed format, definition language simply adds to the cost
> of producing the database which adds to the cost of the machine. SQL has to
> be done. DDS does not. So DDS is finished.
>
> And we all know how short the pockets are for buying things in the 400
> world. Why ask for a higher priced box?
 By eliminating DDS (from a practical standpoint) you've now shifted the 
cost of redevelopment onto the customer anyway, so we pay either way!  I 
think that it would cost us a lot less for IBM to make the enhancements 
than for us to have to redevelop major systems. JMHO.

 -mark