4 ms·

> 12c is genuinely state-of-the-art i know a lot of companies that are still on 11g. and this is not in any way state-of-the art, heck it does not even have a

by merb 9y ago

> 12c is genuinely state-of-the-art i know a lot of companies that are still on 11g. and this is not in any way state-of-the art, heck it does not even have a limit clause. It's hard to actually trust your statement that 12c is so much better, when 11g was basically trash.

gaius 9y ago
11g was basically trash Because it was lacking a tiny piece of syntactic sugar? Just use ROWNUM.
- merb 9y ago
  if it would've been just that... but if your "express" edition is harder to configure/install than a kubernetes cluster (the hard way) than something is really really wrong.
- orf 9y ago
  It's a bit more than that. Django has a lot workarounds[1] for Oracle and it's strange ways. 1. https://github.com/django/django/blob/master/django/db/backends/oracle/operations.py https://github.com/django/django/blob/master/django/db/backe...
  - gaius 9y ago
    No one who needs Oracle cares about quirky syntax. They care that Flashback Query or some other major feature works.
    - orf 9y ago
      Good for them, but that doesn't reduce the maintenance burden for anyone trying to write database agnostic software. I guess that's a good business strategy if you are in oracle's position. In any case your original quote was "Because it was lacking a tiny piece of syntactic sugar?", and I was merely pointing out that it is a bit more than some syntactic sugar.
      - gaius 9y ago
        anyone trying to write database agnostic software. Who are these people, really? Noone tries to write language agnostic code then gets upset when it won't compile as both C++ and Java. People who try to write code that will compile on both Unix and Windows accept that they must make compromises... Or they have lots of platform-specific code hidden in a framework somewhere. So that is a silly argument. If you are investing in a platform - and I don't just mean licenses but TCO, incl hiring experienced people - then it makes sense to exploit all of its features to their utmost and extract the most value. If you aren't doing that then you are coding with one hand tied behind your back.
        orf 9y ago
        We are getting a bit off point here. I agree with your overall point, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm simply saying that there are reasons to criticize Oracle's DB offering that extends past 'limit/offset syntactic sugar', and there are a lot of quirks. As a cheap, easy example of such quirks you can look at software that has to work around them, like Django.
        gaius 9y ago
        reasons to criticize Oracle's DB offering that extends past 'limit/offset syntactic sugar', and there are a lot of quirks Sure. But the point I was making is that if you really do need Oracle's higher-end features, there aren't many or sometimes any substitutes. How long have the PG crew been trying to get AS OF working? But Flashback's been in Oracle for years and if you need it, you need it. And if you don't, then Postgres is a pretty safe choice. But Oracle is very far from "basically trash" because some guy doesn't like some bit of syntax!

by merb 9y ago

gaius 9y ago

11g was basically trash Because it was lacking a tiny piece of syntactic sugar? Just use ROWNUM.

merb 9y ago
if it would've been just that... but if your "express" edition is harder to configure/install than a kubernetes cluster (the hard way) than something is really really wrong.
orf 9y ago
It's a bit more than that. Django has a lot workarounds[1] for Oracle and it's strange ways. 1. https://github.com/django/django/blob/master/django/db/backends/oracle/operations.py https://github.com/django/django/blob/master/django/db/backe...
- gaius 9y ago
  No one who needs Oracle cares about quirky syntax. They care that Flashback Query or some other major feature works.
  - orf 9y ago
    Good for them, but that doesn't reduce the maintenance burden for anyone trying to write database agnostic software. I guess that's a good business strategy if you are in oracle's position. In any case your original quote was "Because it was lacking a tiny piece of syntactic sugar?", and I was merely pointing out that it is a bit more than some syntactic sugar.
    - gaius 9y ago
      anyone trying to write database agnostic software. Who are these people, really? Noone tries to write language agnostic code then gets upset when it won't compile as both C++ and Java. People who try to write code that will compile on both Unix and Windows accept that they must make compromises... Or they have lots of platform-specific code hidden in a framework somewhere. So that is a silly argument. If you are investing in a platform - and I don't just mean licenses but TCO, incl hiring experienced people - then it makes sense to exploit all of its features to their utmost and extract the most value. If you aren't doing that then you are coding with one hand tied behind your back.
      - orf 9y ago
        We are getting a bit off point here. I agree with your overall point, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm simply saying that there are reasons to criticize Oracle's DB offering that extends past 'limit/offset syntactic sugar', and there are a lot of quirks. As a cheap, easy example of such quirks you can look at software that has to work around them, like Django.
        gaius 9y ago
        reasons to criticize Oracle's DB offering that extends past 'limit/offset syntactic sugar', and there are a lot of quirks Sure. But the point I was making is that if you really do need Oracle's higher-end features, there aren't many or sometimes any substitutes. How long have the PG crew been trying to get AS OF working? But Flashback's been in Oracle for years and if you need it, you need it. And if you don't, then Postgres is a pretty safe choice. But Oracle is very far from "basically trash" because some guy doesn't like some bit of syntax!