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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!62.111.101.3.MISMATCH!news.germany.com!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: The future of Ada is at risk
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
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>
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 15:35:57 +0100
Message-ID: <1xu2jerm6vwjv.mt6we9a8wu5q.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Jan 2008 15:35:57 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 0a555fc3.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=XFcI;LC]h?@gj[ZPFj7ehOA9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRAnkgeX?EC@@@_Zd2ERS\W5J[6LHn;2LCVN[<mhadbfdUKIRE4i197DANIEjSNP5AZNK
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19214
Date: 2008-01-05T15:35:57+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:29:11 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 12:40 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>>  that they pursue a philosophy
>> alien to Ada. Rather than to describe a DB in a higher-level way
>> independently on the target DB, they try to stay as DB-close as possible.
> 
> What would be the higher level? GNADE includes embedded SQL.

Higher than ODBC and properly done. There must be no traces of SQL, pure
relational algebra specified in Ada types, plus connection and transaction
support. I would also like to have non-relational DB support.

> 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.

Hitting nails forget about whatever abstraction the hammer has. Otherwise,
you might hit your finger...

> 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? (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de