Re: Differences in data description in programming languages
From: Alistair Maclean (alistair_at_ld50macca.demon.co.uk)
Date: 11/28/04
- Next message: Alistair Maclean: "Re: slightly OT: Project Managers"
- Previous message: Lueko Willms: "Re: COMPUTE vs MOVE"
- In reply to: Pete Dashwood: "Re: Differences in data description in programming languages"
- Next in thread: Lueko Willms: "Open Source COBOLs (was: Differences in data description in programm)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 28 Nov 2004 08:16:30 -0800
Well said.
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message news:<30tjpoF33o8q1U1@uni-berlin.de>...
> In passing I'd like to note an exception.
>
> I recently had cause to develop an application that needed to have a shared
> (via the Internet) database. I found an ISP who would allow my MS ACCESS DB
> to be shared on his server, using the MyODBC driver for remote access and
> managing it with MySQL server (which can also accomodate ACCESS DBs...). I
> was impressed with MyODBC which worked exactly as documented and implemented
> facilities that MS ODBC SHOULD have had. It allowed me to define the remote
> DB as a DSN and even gave me a facility to test the connection at the same
> time.
>
> MyODBC is Open Source and a free download.
>
> My PowerCOBOL application didn't mind it at all and ran correctly, going via
> this driver to the remote ACCESS DB in under 5 seconds. (A round trip of
> 15000 miles). Subsequent accesses were under 3 seconds. Pretty good for free
> software.
>
> I was so intriqued, I decided to convert the ACCESS database to MySQL which
> was a very simple process. To my astonishment, I found that MySQL had all
> the facilities of ACCESS (although it took a few days to get round the
> learning curves) and ran much faster! Running it on the same server the
> initial response was under 4 seconds and subsequent under 2. All of my
> existing SQL ran without change (apart from one complex piece of nested SQL,
> which I simply broke into simpler statements).
>
> MySQL is Open Source and a free download.
>
> These products are stable, supported, and in use all over the world by
> hundreds of thousands of people.
>
> So it would be unfair to classify all Open Source as "Mickey Mouse"... I
> have decided to use MySQL for all future development and have found the
> support forums and the products and documentation to be first class.
>
> It would be great to see TC doing the same, but I fear it is not likely...
>
> Pete.
- Next message: Alistair Maclean: "Re: slightly OT: Project Managers"
- Previous message: Lueko Willms: "Re: COMPUTE vs MOVE"
- In reply to: Pete Dashwood: "Re: Differences in data description in programming languages"
- Next in thread: Lueko Willms: "Open Source COBOLs (was: Differences in data description in programm)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
