Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO
From: Richard (riplin_at_Azonic.co.nz)
Date: 01/07/04
- Previous message: Richard: "Re: can cobol handle the handle?"
- In reply to: Doug Scott: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: Doug Scott: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Reply: Doug Scott: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 6 Jan 2004 17:59:48 -0800
Doug Scott <dwscott@ieee.org> wrote
> > a MS-SQL Server presentation a
> > number of years ago, and asked about the "roll-back" capability, the
> > presenter said "Why would you want to do that?"
>
> Yeah. I didn't know they couldn't do it, but it's no surprise. They're
> hackers.
'MS' SQL Server is actually Sybase SQL that MS bought the product
outright and rebadged it. Sybase has now written a new 'clean room'
replacement.
I have no doubt that Sybase/SQLServer is a full featured product, but
the presenter probably came from a PC/Access background rather that
from the corporate server end of the market.
- Previous message: Richard: "Re: can cobol handle the handle?"
- In reply to: Doug Scott: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: Doug Scott: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Reply: Doug Scott: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|