Re: Article about supposed "murky" future for Oracle

dbguy101_at_hotmail.com (Database Guy) wrote in message news:<7fdee71c.0403251653.28d05583_at_posting.google.com>...
> Sybrand Bakker <gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message news:<t5d660ld9cv7hpmg8r9b5k876qurkp8hvp_at_4ax.com>...
> > And why would anyone even think about implementing the unreadable JOIN
> > syntax of SQL92, if the older convention is more readable and works
> > just as well.
>
> So you think that a syntax that: (1) clearly splits out join
> predicates from other predicates, in an unambiguous manner, instead of
> mixing them together; that (2) requires you to only specify the join
> type once (instead of for each predicate used by the join - absolutely
> crazy); and that (3) uses natural language instead of contrived,
> non-standard operator symbols - is somehow less readable? And there
> was me thinking it was just not what you were used to.

I think for example that so called "natural join" from ANSI92 syntax is one of the most stupidest things in the standards industry. For me it doesn't look like much readable if join in a query is based on column names that may or may not appear in a query. I do not remember all keys in hundreds of tables in several my databases, so for me is nice to see what is the key I'm using in particular join.

> Why did Oracle implement ANSI 92 join syntax, since you asked?

In the Oracle documentation is clearly stated that ANSI92 join syntax was added only for purpose of easier porting of database applications from other platforms to Oracle.

--
Dusan Bolek

Email: spambin_at_seznam.cz
Pls add "Not Guilty" to the subject, otherwise your email is going to
be burnt as a SPAM.