It is not just about building an App Server. Each vendor is trying to promote his own suite of products-in a way trying to tell us to use only their products for all the requirements. That seems to be the trend these days...
SQl and turing complete? I doubt that..your reasons aren't convincing enough.. Regards, jd On 7/13/10, Casper Bang <casper.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > I disagree with the notion that SQL is turing complete. Perhaps you're > used to proprietary supersets such as Oracle's PL/SQL or Microsoft's T- > SQL, but those are no longer purely declarative SQL92 compliant > standards but hybrids born from vendors' desire to turn the DBMS into > an app-server. Without iteration and branching you'll have a hard time > building a turing-machine. > > /Casper > > On Jul 13, 4:03 pm, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 13 July 2010 14:58, Wildam Martin <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 15:40, jitesh dundas <jbdun...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > I think XML is a really good way of reducing the coding efforts..What >> > > is >> > > wrong with XML...HIbernate uses XML so I guess that is one of the >> > strengths >> > > of the same.. >> >> > I can tell you what is wrong with XML: It takes longer to get the XML >> > right than write a little - more flexible piece of code. There is >> > nothing won. >> >> > XML is for data exchange like CSV - but for more complex structures >> > and only if the files don't get too long because of the lousy >> > performance dealing with XML (by design there is no really fast way). >> >> > I prefer 100 times to write a piece of source code over frickling >> > around with XML files. >> > This is my last remembering from the last .NET courses I attended. The >> > presenters were more time occupied dealing with XML than writing code >> > - yeah. >> >> > But - to get back to the original topic: >> >> > I think Java, is a very pretty language - easy to learn and still >> > powerful and some more complex structures are optional (e.g. >> > generics). From all the languages I learned, I enjoyed learning Java >> > very much if not most (except the annoyance of the need to finalize >> > every line with ";" ;-) ). >> >> > XML and SQL I do not really consider as programming languages - SQL is >> > more like a programming language than XML - XML is a file format, >> > nothing more. SQL is a query language - as it state in it's name. Very >> > narrow realm where it is used. >> >> SQL is turing-complete, so is XSL-T >> (though not XML, that's just an SGML format) >> for that matter, so are Perl-5 regular expressions. >> >> and turing completeness really is the only valid criteria for judging >> whether or not something is a "programming language" >> >> > There are new interesting languages like Scala but from my point of >> > view it does not offer solutions to my most common problems or >> > reducing time spent where I spend it most (e.g. GUI design ;-) ). >> >> > -- >> > Martin Wildam >> >> -- >> Kevin Wright >> >> mail/google talk: kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com >> wave: kev.lee.wri...@googlewave.com >> skype: kev.lee.wright >> twitter: @thecoda > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
