Same guys. It's great to see this moving from theory to application so quickly.
On Oct 10, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Sean Kelly wrote: > 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
