On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:35:14 -0400 waldo kitty <[email protected]> wrote:
Don't you think you are overreacting? Sure, not everything that needs to store data needs a db but sometimes it is just convenient to use one. > and what can you do to fix library code? Well, for sqlite for example download the code and fix it. If you use open source libs there should be no problem. Bug reports may help, too. Of course it is easier to fix your own code, but I am not able to code everything I need myself and therefor have to use libs. > and why would someone want to use some sql data base format where they are > required to use a special interface (sql) and method of access (database > server) > to manipulate their data when they can do it faster and easier in their own > storage formats?? Sometimes it is just easier to use a db (standard format) instead of coming up with and mantaining a GOOD format on your own. > besides, XML is a good example as well since everyone and their mother seem > to > see it as a huge step forward for some reason... i see it as being more > complicated than other available options XML is as complicated as you make it. All languages I know provide good support for working with XML/DOM and it is a human readable format, which makes it very convenient to use. > speaking of embedded, what does a > refrigerator, microwave oven, convection oven, coffee maker or toaster oven > need > with a database? for that matter, what does a security camera, laser measure > tool, or television need with a database? i mean, seriously... Store data, what else. A laser measure tool may group measurements by object or place or something else and store location, time, measured data, error marging, etc. in the db. It may even be easier to bring the data from one db (the tool internal one) to another (which is used in the firm using the tool), than from a flat data file where you may be forced to write an exporter/importer to get the data in your db. Does it absolutely need a db? No, but maybe the lifes of the developers and users get easier by using one. > then again, one can also shave another 500k off of their application's > footprint > if they don't have to use that 500k shared library code that could be buggy > and > full of sneak paths thru it that the hackers just love to find ;) Your own code could be buggy as well or are you the only developer coding without bugs? You sound like a db is the root of all evil, full of buggy code and every cracker in the world just wants to break your embedded db. I highly doubt that this is the case. And btw the nineties called and want their 500K back. Remember, we are talking about desktop apps on current generation hardware. I don't even care if an app on my mobile uses 500K more or less, even less so on my desktop machine. If you really have problems with that 500K, I take it for granted that you don't run any Java programs on your computer. Perhaps you should switch from Pascal to Assembler to make sure that you have absolute control over every register and waste no single bit or CPU cycle. NOM, just my 2 cents and now I am getting off your lawn. ;) R. -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
