RE: SQL Syntax

Zak,

I don't disagree with Your statements, below, all that much.

If You're looking for platform independence, SQL is THE way to go.


But if You're looking for effective results, then here's another thought for
consideration.  (I don't wanna start up the entire QUERY/400 vs. QMQRY
and/or OPNQRYF vs. SQL debate, all over again...  But...)

There is an inherently false theory that there is NO limit to the number of
programming languages that any REAL programmer can master, simultaneously.

That's where, imv (in my view) another one of the PRIMARY advantages of
CPF/OS/400 was the concept that a file is a file, and ALL files could be
defined through ONE language, namely DDS.  (This, obviously, works against
the advantage of the multi-platform approach.)  To me, SQL is a prime
example of dumbing down to the level of lowest-common-denominator.


In my experience anyway, "Jack of all trades, and master of none" applies
VERY directly to this issue.  Judgment call, goes without saying.  ISVs and
BPs, as well, have tough decisions about whether to go for the entire server
marketspace, or specialize in the 400 arena.  Similar to what all 400
programmers face, though the issues involved are a fair bit different.

As Joe and Rob have just pointed out, the need for platform-independence is
not an easy question to answer.  That there will be multiple OS in the
future of computing is an easy one, but not so easy to tell is whether
OS/400 necessarily HAS to become a *nix look-alike to survive.

The need for enhancements to DDS (by IBM and/or 3rd parties), like the idea
Joe mentioned for a DDS/SQL Wizard, may be a moot point at the end of the
day.


jt

| [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Metz, Zak
| Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 1:46 PM
| To: midrange-l@midrange.com
| Subject: RE: SQL Syntax
|
|
| I consider SQL a language in itself, rather than just something I
| try to retrofit into another language or use for ad-hoc reporting.

<snip a good-un>