NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
In the near future, the probability is close to zero. In the distant
future, I'll be dead, and posterity can do whatever they like... :-) --lwall
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Bah (Score:2)
I always had the feeling (having made the exact same mistake you describe) that the world might be safer if the absence of WHERE implied "WHERE false".
But then that's a mooo point because SQL SUCKS. I am so delighted I don't have to touch it anymore. It's worse than Java. It's worse than INTERCAL. It's worse than BrianFuck (if I misspelt that one correctly). SQL should be dragged out in the backyard and shot. The only things that sucks more than SQL are RDBMS -- all of them, except perhaps SQLite b
-- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]
Re:Bah (Score:2)
As for trees, that's called the hierarchical model, and it was dragged out in the backyard and shot back in the 70's. The fact is that with relational theory, creating a schema for hierarchical data is easy. However, creating a hierarchical schema for non-hierarchical data
Re:Bah (Score:2)
Humour, it's called humour. I sometimes use it on monday mornings when I'm bored, or feel facetious, or am still drunk from the week-end.
I know DB Debunking, I know about RDBMS, and I know about the hierarchical model. A lot of stuff is inherently hierarchical, with cyclic or acyclic graphs all over. I like the latter best, it fits my brain better. And there are lots of cool tools to use it. But then I'm a document guy and I don't care much about the needs that usually drive people to want DBMSs.
-- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]
Re:Bah (Score:2)
It seemed there were some serious parts in there though. I for one do seriously think SQL should be dragged into the backyard and shot.
Re:Bah (Score:2)
Yes, there were indeed some serious parts, but they were seriously exaggerated (sorry if that was unclear). I do dislike SQL much, and used to think that it should be shot, especially as it's so balkanised. Now that I don't have to use it anymore, I really don't care much (though I'm always interested in hearing about better options).
Much of the rest was mostly flamebait for Matt, with whom I've had this conversation a dozen times :)
-- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]
Re:Bah (Score:2)
This says neither about the quality of those languages, but I do think it says one thing: they get the job done.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Bah (Score:2)
they get the job done
As do contract killers. I'm not scared. Yet.
Now, of the four schema languages for XML that you can name off the top of your head, which two make sense and which two are most widely used, and despite general dislike, do in fact get the job done? Would you recommend them? Do you think they should be replaced with a better solution?
-- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]