RE: SQL vs V5R1 and service woes

If the field names are the same, then I don't have to do moves, Rob.  And I
can accomplish that easily enough with field renames, even if the field
names aren't the same.

If your argument for SQL is that it makes it easier to change your database
layout, it only holds for "SELECT *".  And SELECT * doesn't work very well
in non-trivial cases.  In fact, it works only in this VERY simplistic
example, where the two files have exactly the same fields in exactly the
same order.

What if I add a field to only ONE file?  What if I remove a field?  What if
I change the order of the fields in one file?

Wow, SQL starts doing stupid things.  So unless you have field names, or you
use a trivial example where the fields are the same in both files, RPG is
actually easier to maintain and extend than SQL:

1. The fields can be in different orders
2. The fields can exist in one file and not the other

As I've said, Rob, SQL is great for query.  But it's really a bad choice for
database update, as this example clearly shows.

Joe


> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of rob@dekko.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:56 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: RE: SQL vs V5R1 and service woes
>
>
>
> Thank you for your suggestion.  We're open to much.  Even if new logicals
> are required (arrgh - native RPG!).  Joe, judging by many of your past
> posts I don't think you can find a use for SQL anywhere.  You
> also left out
> the 11 eval's for moving the fields from one name to another.  But how
> could you know there were that many.  And the hassle if someone adds a
> field to both of the files, (gotta go change this program).  And the
> groundless phobia that rpg programmers have about using the same
> field name
> in more than one file.
>
> Rob Berendt