In <[🔎] h6mefe$ad6$3@ger.gmane.org>, Emanoil Kotsev wrote: >Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> In <[🔎] h6lhuk$eke$1@ger.gmane.org>, Emanoil Kotsev wrote: >>>Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >>>> In <[🔎] h6l9af$4pe$1@ger.gmane.org>, Emanoil Kotsev wrote: >>>>>Yeah, somehow SQL does not seem to be really "S"tandard :-) >>>> >>>> The "S" in SQL stands/stood for "Structured". [...] >>> >>>hehe, I was thinking (because reading about standardization of SQL) it >>>stands for standard. >>> >> Functions are a real issue. I believe there's some allowances for them >> in the standard, but the function body usually ends up being >> implementation specific. > >yeah tell me about that ... you ever tried to migrate oracle to oracle >higher/lower version?! No, thank $DEITY. I had a couple of jobs involving Oracle, but I tend to avoid anything were I have to deal with too much proprietary software. >... so programmers can be kept buzzy :-) otherways we could have an AI >engine about 10 years ago. Weak AI has existed for more than 10 years. Strong AI is still a pipe dream. It's not "just" a issue of time, we don't really have an idea what goes into a system like that. We don't know how to imbue consciousness (or if that's just an illusion of complex interactions) or even how to write a general learning system that can both expand it's own scope with "meta"-assertions and operate both in non-deterministic way and with incomplete information with "fuzzy"-assertions. We've got some really interesting research projects happening now and in the past. Some have seen commercial applications. Japan has very interesting specialty robots, but none driven by what anyone would consider a "strong" AI. I'm not even sure we want strong AI. >functions are a big pain because PL/SQL is proprietary ... then there was >the pgSQL coming close to PL/SQL but not exactly ... and so on, so I'm >wondering where the world and we are going. especially open source >community could be more standard oriented. That would be nice. I'd like to see more Free Software be certified, but that usually costs $$$$, and doesn't always mesh well with the Bazaar-style development that some projects use. >Perhaps we have to ask w3c to provide a markup for database and leave all >this "pretty close" sql sh*t. Right, because every piece of HTML you see is strictly-conforming. W3C hasn't done any better than any other standards organization. >However I learned years ago something useful about databases. You have to >plan the size, speed, scalability, functionality etc. _before_ you start >using whatever database. >You have to check export/import _before_ you start using whatever > database. You better simulate database corruption _before_ you start > using whatever database and so on. You should really be doing that with any piece of software. If you can't evaluate it, definitely don't spend any money on it. If you haven't tested it, don't put it into production. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.