From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a0be06fbc0dd71f1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: The future of Ada is at risk
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
In-Reply-To: <1xu2jerm6vwjv.mt6we9a8wu5q.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <20071229040639.f753f982.coolzone@it.dk> <flnlmp$su$1@online.de>
	 <878x3436pj.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <1199531506.9355.8.camel@K72>
	 <vh1ezr05krrf.1fhfhd3lm8h6a.dlg@40tude.net> <1199539751.9355.46.camel@K72>
	 <1xu2jerm6vwjv.mt6we9a8wu5q.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1199554944.14020.47.camel@K72>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:42:24 +0100
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Jan 2008 18:42:27 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: a5952a8a.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=Kng8l@aN@5mOKO]LCQ@0g`ic==]BZ:afn4Fo<]lROoRaFl8W>\BH3YbPWTa_DZbRhnA:ho7QcPOVcC@@Bb\Ed]7j;hSKP`L@?Je
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19221
Date: 2008-01-05T18:42:27+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 15:35 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> > Even more higher level bindings hiding the SQL nature
> > of DB do what they promise. Not what I want because while they offer
> > high level abstractions, the high level abstractions
> > should be be problem domain abstractions, not database
> > abstractions. 
> 
> Sorry, I never could understand this argument. DB has no merits of its own.
> It is a tool.

To me, a DB management system is an essential part of the operating
system. Just like a file system, only an RDBMS has more to offer.


> > Hypothesis: The more magic is put in the layer above the high
> > level language SQL, the more difficult it is to actually use
> > that language, hiding all advantages of SQL[*].
> 
> Advantages of SQL? Over what? (:-))

Advantages of SQL over fiddling with semi-successful reinventions
of somehow relational not-really-algebras in programming languages
that academic theses tend to produce. (Yes, OK, at least there is
something for the respective pet language.)

When I use SQL it is when the programs perform one of the most important
things that computers are doing: input and output. I/O and associated
calculations must be efficient, due to timing constraints. When tables
have between 200 and 65_000_000 rows then doing the most natural join
over three tables is just not meeting the specifications of both the
machine and the time on the wall clock.

A relational approach lives in its super-size infinitesimal response
time world. I don't and the servers don't either. Therefore, I need
access to the  RDMS in a transparent way, without having to go through
a chain of implications that a non-SQL better-than-SQL Ada type set
offers behind the scene. I need to work behind the scene.

In case you find a way to represent a better relational algebra
in Ada types, I'll be happy to join your newly founded DB company
operating the coffee machines or whatever is needed. ;-)