|
| Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
n/t
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: al_dunsmuir on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
SQL is a language, just like Java is a language.
SQL is implemented by APIs that work with files.
While you can choose to be pedantic about things, my point was to draw attention
to the parallels between Oracles's use of SQL vs. their claims on Java, and
Oracle's database implementation vs. what became IBM's DB2.
To the end user, a database is just a bunch of APIs, black boxes, and fancy
files - with optional support, license fees, etc.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
Personally, quel was much better.
A more general language that was complete with input/output and database.
SQL isn't, and wasn't supposed to be. It was always embedded in another language
(COBOL, I think, though PL/1 is also a contender).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: xtifr on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
He didn't say their database was SQL; he said their database
products are an implementation of SQL. That's true. Emacs
isn't Lisp, but it's an implementation of Lisp, even though it's an editor/app
framework, not a language. The actual database part of their database products
may be separate from the SQL part, just as the Lisp part of Emacs is separate
from the editor part, but that doesn't change the truth of the
claim.
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them
soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
