🚀 go-pugleaf

Why bother is RIGHT !

In recent conversations with RDBMS vendors other than IBM, they state
that they will work toward a "standard" implementation of SQL - both
interactive and HLI(Host Language Interface). They also stated that
when there is a conflict between the ANSI standard and the IBM "standard",
they will adopt the IBM "standard". These vendors are some of the leading
independents. Therefore, I reluctantly believe that the ANSI problem is moot.
 
Furthermore, these same vendors all offer extensions to ANSI and IBM SQL
that are very attractive and useful. If their products are acquired because
of some conformance to any "standard" - ANSI or IBM, would you NOT use the
extensions ? If you do use them, the "standard" again becomes moot. 
 
I think reality is that vendors will try to implement some form of SQL,
claim that it is "compatible" with somebody's "standard",  and add their
extensions for competitive reasons. Expectations of full conformance to
anything are very naive.
 
Lastly, I don't think we should be all that concerned with an SQL standard
expecting that if implemented it would be something that we would use for
a very long time to come. I give SQL ten years at the most before it is
replaced by something much more powerful with the semantics that SQL lacks.
There are already products coming on the market with this capability.
Of course, I could be seriously wrong here. I work in an envirnonment that
includes IBM's IMS and DL/I. Many have predicted that relational systems
would be its death knoll in the not too distant future. This certainly
remains to be seen. Meanwhile, any closely "compatible" conformance to
a database language "standard" is more that we could have hoped for five
years ago.
-- 
Jim Goncher - Pacific Bell -   {ihnp4,dual,qantel,lll-crg}!ptsfa!jag