Surprising. I read a research paper about a proposed language just a few months ago. I wonder if this is by the same guys.
Sent from my iPhone On Oct 10, 2011, at 12:05 AM, "Roald Ribe" <r...@pogostick.net> wrote: > On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 20:31:35 -0300, Sean Kelly <s...@invisibleduck.org> wrote: > >> On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> >>> On 10/9/11 5:31 PM, Walter Bright wrote: >>>> On 10/9/2011 5:28 AM, Piotr Szturmaj wrote: >>>>> 1. I think that we should not design this API using the least common >>>>> denominator >>>>> approach. This is to not limit some databases. For example PostgreSQL >>>>> has many >>>>> great features not available in MySQL. That's why I started with >>>>> postgres in my >>>>> ddb project. I think DB API should be designed to support the most >>>>> featureful >>>>> databases and those that have less features may be easily adapted to >>>>> that API. >>>> >>>> >>>> Haven't common denominator designs been more or less failures in at >>>> least one category - gui libraries? >>> >>> A common database interface is not a common denominator API; more like the >>> opposite. This is not difficult because most differences across database >>> systems lie in their SQL, which is strings from D's perspective. >> >> Assuming that by "database" you mean SQL. Pretty fair assumption, though >> NoSQL databases (which cover a broad range of designs since there's no >> standard language yet for key-value DBs, etc) are rapidly gaining >> popularity. I almost wonder if the base type should be named SqlDatabase >> instead of Database. > > There is a standard language defined for NoSQL, namely UnQL: > http://wwww.unqlspec.org/display/UnQL/Home > > Roald
