4 ms·
Having worked on the MSSQL source code -- even if you could see it it would not help. It's a incredibly complicated monolith with a lot of historical baggage. N
by Locke1689 15y ago
Having worked on the MSSQL source code -- even if you could see it it would not help. It's a incredibly complicated monolith with a lot of historical baggage. Not kind to fresh eyes. Remember that SQL Server was originally Sybase SQL Server.
- pork 15y agoI remember Sybase ads from my teens. I did not know they were assimilated to generate MSSQL, interesting!
- wglb 15y agoActually, MS bought the rights to the Sybase software, not the company. There are still quite a few similarities.
- quadrant 15y agoThat apocryphal last comment is irrelevant though as the code bases entire split many, many, versions ago. (pre 7.0)
- Tyrannosaurs 15y agoAnd if memory serves it's been through at least one, possibly two ground up rewrites since then.
- endersshadow 15y agoIt's been through massive rewrites, but they didn't throw away the code and start from scratch. They took five years (between SQL 2000 and SQL 2005) and completely revamped the offering. Looking at SQL 2012, it's really quite impressive how far they've come along, albeit in 12 years.
- Locke1689 15y agoWhy wouldn't it be relevant? It emphasizes that SQL Server has been a product longer than Google has been a company. Moreover, there's still Sybase code still in the project. Is the Sybase code the biggest problem? Hell no. How about the fact that there is no "standard library" and there are no less than four different hash table implementations written by different people at different times -- only one of which you should probably use, although you wouldn't know it from the "documentation"? That's a pretty big one and almost definitely what I'd characterize as "historical baggage."