× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



IMHO:

Many problems we see with "embedded SQL" are precisely because is implemented as a separate pre-compiler (or preprocessor), and not truly integrated into the language(s)/compiler(s).

A preprocessor almost never has the same depth and breadth of knowledge of the host language(s) within which it is embedded that a "real" compiler has (by parsing the full syntax and semantics of the host language).

Recently, some of the IBM mainframe compilers now use an SQL "co-processor" design instead of a completely separate SQL pre-processor. That helps somewhat, and is a step in the right direction.

In the 1980s, I worked for one of the world's largest independent software vendors (at that time), and when we added SQL support to our 4GL language, we implemented it directly within the compiler, and not as a separate pre-processor. This provided excellent results and benefits. Error messages are integrated with the rest of the compiler's error handling; SQL statement parsers have full access to the compiler's symbol tables, so they can interrogate the type, length, and decimal places, etc. of host variables, and so on. And there were no problems with the "scope" of variables, as we frequently see with the current generation of IBM SQL pre-processors.

I can hardly understand why, after all these years, IBM still maintains the "embedded SQL" capability as (a set of) pre-processors (for each language), rather than just integrating support for SQL directly into each language compiler.

After all, IBM just went right ahead and added direct language support for XML to RPG IV ... so, why can't they support "embedded SQL" properly?

I suspect it probably has something to do with "turf" and "who owns the database" versus "who owns the language compilers" -- and some "political" rationale. Meanwhile, we end users suffer with and must continue to tolerate a less-than-optimal solution.

That's my opinion, what's yours?

Mark S. Waterbury

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.