 | |
#1
 
| |||
| |||
|
SQL Implementation -
09-30-2003
, 03:37 PM
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
How well do todays databases implement SQL99? I dont think any are certified. Will they be? |
ANSI and ISO; all that generally takes place is for vendors to _claim_
to be compliant with some part or another of the standards.
NIST used to be involved in certifying this, but their testing and
certification program was dropped back in the mid-'90s.
By and large, what seems to happen is that makers of databases that
are "wishful" for higher standing try to conform to the standards.
Those that already consider their products to be popular egregiously
create features that break the standards because they know you'll use
their products irrespective of standards conformance.
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://cbbrowne.com/info/sgml.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #141. "As an alternative to not having
children, I will have _lots_ of children. My sons will be too busy
jockeying for position to ever be a real threat, and the daughters
will all sabotage each other's attempts to win the hero."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
How well do todays databases implement SQL99? I dont think any are certified. Will they be? |
in the mid 1990's.)
A somewhat outdated overview on different vendors' SQL 99 compliance can be
found at:
http://developer.mimer.com/validator...on%20chart.tml
/Jarl
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
How well do todays databases implement SQL99? I dont think any are certified. Will they be? |
The FIPS-127 Certification program that was administered by NIST was
closed down by Clinton years ago. But nobody has a great desire to
use the SQL-99 specs as more than a guide for syntax when they add a
new feature.
The language got way out of hand when it was internally known in NCITS
H2 (nee ANSI X3H2) as SQL3. We have about 100 contractions, three
different object models, etc. The final results were better, but
still a nightmare of non-relational features globbed together. The
U.S. government refers to it as "a standard in progress", then asks
for SQL-92 conformance in its bids.
Remember PL/I? Algol-68? ADA?
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
How well do todays databases implement SQL99? I dont think any are certified. Will they be? The FIPS-127 Certification program that was administered by NIST was closed down by Clinton years ago. But nobody has a great desire to use the SQL-99 specs as more than a guide for syntax when they add a new feature. The language got way out of hand when it was internally known in NCITS H2 (nee ANSI X3H2) as SQL3. We have about 100 contractions, three different object models, etc. The final results were better, but still a nightmare of non-relational features globbed together. The U.S. government refers to it as "a standard in progress", then asks for SQL-92 conformance in its bids. Remember PL/I? Algol-68? ADA? ^ ^ ^ | it's still alive and kicking with pleasure god, no |
robert
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
PL/I?: God, no! |
same job, and ALWAYS ran. Never mind that you wanted it to stop. The
automatic type conversions could suddenly give you a payroll with
complex numbers instead of a warning.
Quote:
|
Algol-68? with pleasure |
Algol-68 was so complex that there were only three compilers for it
(one was the Royal Radar guys in teh UK and I don't remember the other
two -- colleges, I think). I still have the specs for it; I still
cannot understand the meta-meta-language they invented.
Quote:
|
ADA? it's still alive and kicking |
when ADA was created and had to write code in it without a compiler.
The thing was awful and the first compilers took a year longer than
planned because of the complexity. As InfoTech put it, there was no
way to build a kernel then add to it to get a full language compiler
-- you had to create the entire language all at once. A New York
University built a compiler in SETL which had one error message and we
played with that.
What we actually did with Ada was write a C or Forth program then drop
it into an Ada shell to get real-time systems to work.
#7
| |||
| |||
|
|
PL/I?: God, no! It compiled to over three times the size of a COBOL program to do the same job, and ALWAYS ran. Never mind that you wanted it to stop. The automatic type conversions could suddenly give you a payroll with complex numbers instead of a warning. Algol-68? with pleasure No, no, no. Algol-60 was a pleasure. Algol-65 was a clean up. Algol-68 was so complex that there were only three compilers for it (one was the Royal Radar guys in teh UK and I don't remember the other two -- colleges, I think). I still have the specs for it; I still cannot understand the meta-meta-language they invented. |
on 30 years) was that it was -68. memory is the second thing to go.
Quote:
|
ADA? it's still alive and kicking Nope. The Ada mandate was killed on 1998 Oct 01. I was with AIRMICS when ADA was created and had to write code in it without a compiler. The thing was awful and the first compilers took a year longer than planned because of the complexity. As InfoTech put it, there was no way to build a kernel then add to it to get a full language compiler -- you had to create the entire language all at once. A New York University built a compiler in SETL which had one error message and we played with that. What we actually did with Ada was write a C or Forth program then drop it into an Ada shell to get real-time systems to work. |
to say that it is hale and hearty.
#8
| |||
| |||
|
|
joe.celko (AT) northface (DOT) edu (--CELKO--) wrote in message news:<a264e7ea.0310010946.58a685ae (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>... How well do todays databases implement SQL99? I dont think any are certified. Will they be? The FIPS-127 Certification program that was administered by NIST was closed down by Clinton years ago. But nobody has a great desire to use the SQL-99 specs as more than a guide for syntax when they add a new feature. The language got way out of hand when it was internally known in NCITS H2 (nee ANSI X3H2) as SQL3. We have about 100 contractions, three different object models, etc. The final results were better, but still a nightmare of non-relational features globbed together. The U.S. government refers to it as "a standard in progress", then asks for SQL-92 conformance in its bids. Remember PL/I? Algol-68? ADA? ^ ^ ^ | | it's still alive and kicking | with pleasure god, no robert |
He discusses all of the above mentioned in
http://www.braithwaite-lee.com/opinions/p75-hoare.pdf
regards,
Lauri Pietarinen
#9
| |||
| |||
|
|
How well do todays databases implement SQL99? I dont think any are certified. Will they be? |
#10
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Ryan" <rgaffuri (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote How well do todays databases implement SQL99? I dont think any are certified. Will they be? More importantly, why would you want them to implement SQL99 ? |
specifications than the previous standards.
Perhaps you think it a poor idea to implement SQL99; it would warrant
explaining why...
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxdistributions.html
"When we write programs that "learn", it turns out that we do and they
don't." -- Alan Perlis
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.