On 4 May 2016 at 13:36, Szymon Lipiński <mabew...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 4 May 2016 at 13:13, Chris Travers <chris.trav...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> A few observations >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqlad...@geoff.dj> >> wrote: >> >>> On 4 May 2016 at 06:46, dandl <da...@andl.org> wrote: >>> > I'm a strong believer in putting the business code next to the data, >>> not the wrong >>> > side of the object-relational divide. However, for many the challenge >>> of writing and >>> > debugging SQL code is just too high! >>> >>> Your source for this statement please? "For many" sounds rather like >>> weasel-words to me. In my experience, a wide range of people, from >>> beginners to experts, find SQL easy to write and debug. I'm afraid >>> that the problem seems to me to be that your peg is rather too square. >>> >>> >> I actually agree with dandl on this. Folks can write SQL but often >> aren't really comfortable using it as core application logic. >> >> I.e. one often sees code that retrieves a bunch of records from the db, >> loops through them, and transforms the data as part of the OLTP workflow. >> It is obviously much better of one can think about SQL as business logic >> but this is not that often. >> >> I.e. people think the peg is square but indeed it is round. >> >> >> > From my perspective there is one more thing: when I tried, in couple of > companies, to move some part of the logic to a database, then usually the > management said "no, that's not doable, as we will have trouble with > finding good sql programmers later", and we were still writing all the > logic outside the database. > > Yeah. The classic "We have a bunch of scissors, so use them instead of screwdrivers. Oh, and by the way, please redesign our screws, to make them more scissor compatible." approach. :) The real shame, when they buy an expensive, feature-rich DBMS, run it on a kick ass hardware and then using it as a glorified file cabinet.
Regards, Sándor
