3 ms·

No one who needs Oracle cares about quirky syntax. They care that Flashback Query or some other major feature works.

by gaius 9y ago

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!

No one who needs Oracle cares about quirky syntax. They care that Flashback Query or some other major feature works.

by 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!