Re: The future of Ada is at risk

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:42:24 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

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

The word is "persistence." Yes it is a function of OS to provide a scope
for applications, and a scope for the former scope which is traditionally
called file system. All that an application may want is to reach that
scope.

>>> 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.)

Huh, SQL is neither quite relational, nor properly typed, nor portable, nor
standardized (as we, Ada people used to understand it). And, actually, SQL
is a language, so if you are looking for its advantages ... then they must
be over Ada! (:-))

If rather bindings are in question, then it is Interfaces.DB.Relational vs.
Interfaces.DB.SQL. I vote for the former.

> 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.

How SQL should help you here? Note that people want DBMS-specific bindings
exactly because SQL and relational algebra fail to deliver needed
performance and scalability. What happens if you need the id of an inserted
row? What has row id to do with RA at all?

> 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. ;-)

(:-))

First we need bindings to the existing mess...

Second, the typical scenario of DBMS choice is as follows. Before the
project start, the customer decides to use Oracle (that is not discussed).
Within next two weeks he switches to MS SQL server. And finally, the
project is delivered under MS-Access... (:-))

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