Re: DB2

From: Jim Damato <jdamato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I'd like to know the truth, Leif.  It's just tough to get to it when you
lob
> a statement such as "It was not relational at the time and still isn't" and
> then say, "There is no need for a drawn-out discussion on this."
>
> It's been my understanding that the database as we know it smeared from
> sorted flat files on the System 3 to ISAM with internal fixed columns on
the
> System 38.  Then came a primitive, proprietary query "language" with
> OPNQRYF.  Since then there have been half-hearted attempts and major
> initiatives toward a layer of SQL compliance.  Unfortunately, some of the
> major initiatives were in marketing.  The DB/2 name, I personally think,
> reeked of the same kind of half-*ssed brand convergence that IBM would
later
> try with the eServer line.
>
> I asked my initial question because I always hear very thin arguments about
> DB2/400 such as "it's a flat file system" or "it's built on ISAM".

Up to there we agreed. My point is that the Native AS/400 database
is not/was not relational. The DB2 running on top of it is closer to
relational (but still not quite there, or maybe that is just a question
of standards compliance - they at least TRY to be relational).

So, I'm not arguing about DB2/400 just against the silly notion that
the native AS/400 DB was relational from when it was born
(back on the S/38, before the WAS any implementations of
a relational database other than some lab experiments [system R
and Ingres]).

But it is getting tiresome...