Re: Changing database to SQL from DDS

----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@ttec.com>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: Changing database to SQL from DDS


>   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.

>   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?

===========================================================
R. Bruce Hoffman, Jr.
 -- IBM Certified Specialist - iSeries Administrator
 -- IBM Certified Specialist - RPG IV Developer

"When I die, I want to die like my grandmother who died peacefully
  in her sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in her car."

    - Author Unknown