Re: ANN: Introducing AdaBase - Thick database bindings for Ada

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 11:03:29 AM UTC-6, björn lundin wrote:
> On 2016-05-15 15:59, Shark8 wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 7:27:52 AM UTC-6, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> >>
> >> The fact that SQL is a vendor run ISO standardization business is
> >> related matter. But it is not stopping portability entirely.
> > 
> > If we're being fair, the reason that the SQL ISO is a failure as a standard 
> >is precisely because it has so many optional features (and alternate syntax forms)
> > that it's rather common that two implementations would reject each other's
> > SQL-statements for any non-trivial operation.
> 
> Does that matter in practice ?
> I've ported a system with 700-800 sql-statements from
> Oracle to MS Sql Server
> where all of them where one of
> 
> *select
> *insert
> *update
> *delete
> 
> 
> (and 500 + are not trivial - inner and/or outer joins, sub-selects,
> aggregates and so on)
> 
> I ended up with looking at what database is in use at 1 single statement.
> 
> Oracle calls it substr
> and MS sql server calls it substring
> 
> I find it harsh to call that a failure.
> 
> Sure, the creation of tables/indexes/views are all different,
> but that is of no significance (at least to me)
> 
> --
> Björn

Yes, it does matter.
Just look at these popular implementations compared against the standard: http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/