On 2008-01-07, at 16:45, David Cantrell wrote:
Peter da Silva wrote:
I'm beginning to hate the people who are writing open source code
based on a proprietary system (and don't get me started on MONO).
That bothers me far less than the people writing open source code
based on open systems
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 05:27:43PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-07, at 16:45, David Cantrell wrote:
Peter da Silva wrote:
I'm beginning to hate the people who are writing open source code
based on a proprietary system (and don't get me started on MONO).
That bothers me far less
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 08:25:29PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-07, at 18:01, David Cantrell wrote:
If it's MS-ware, then I know in advance that I needn't bother
looking at
it. If it claims to be open but isn't, then I might actually waste
some
of my time on it.
There's a
On 2008-01-07, at 18:53, dj3va...@eskimo.com dj3va...@eskimo.com
wrote:
Somebody claiming to be Peter da Silva wrote:
I think the Smalltalk environment is a chunk of hate that
distracts people from the sweet language underneath it,
I can say with confidence that the Interact with existing
On 07/01/08 21:53 Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-07, at 13:49, Jeremy Stephens wrote:
Why is the UPDATE syntax so different from INSERT?
Because the people designing SQL were devotees of the English-Likeness
Monster. ...
When I'm generating SQL I just maintain a list of columns and
On 08/01/08 16:46 Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-08, at 10:33, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
The irony is wonderful!
You'll have to elaborate.
The English-Likeness monster doesn't live in keywords, it lives in
syntax and semantics.
You left our the part I quoted:
On 07/01/08 21:53 Peter da
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 13:49:56 -0600
Jeremy Stephens jeremy.f.steph...@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
Why is the UPDATE syntax so different from INSERT? If I'm
constructing a SQL statement to insert or update based on the
existence of a row in some code, I have to have two completely
different cases
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 23:13:23 +, Martin Ebourne li...@ebourne.me.uk
wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 15:00 -0800, Brian Marshall wrote:
I can't testify for any other database, but mysql lets you use the same
syntax for both operations.
INSERT INTO `foo` SET `bar` = 'foobar'
not even
On Jan 8, 2008 12:29 AM, H.Merijn Brand h.m.br...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Nothing beats Oracle (yet)
For hate, I presume from the context?
Offender #1 being that '' is not the same as NULL, and Oracle
shouldn't pretend otherwise.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton philip.new...@gmail.com
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:06:37 +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis pagalt...@gmx.de
wrote:
* Philip Newton philip.new...@gmail.com [2008-01-08 09:50]:
Offender #1 being that '' is not the same as NULL, and Oracle
shouldn't pretend otherwise.
Piffle. If you think you can beat MySQL with *that*, you are
(re:) Mysql comparison of DATE of -00-00 to NULL
It's not equal to null.
It's not not equal to null.
It's not greater than null.
It's not less than null.
It's not rlike null.
It's not null..
It's. something altogether different.
-
* Gerry Lawrence gwlp...@gmail.com [2008-01-08 17:40]:
It's. something altogether different.
mysql select * from foobar where test123 = NULL;
Err, that's not how NULL works in SQL. You don't compare things
to NULL, it's not a value. It's the absence of a value.
What I'm talking about
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:47:53PM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Gerry Lawrence gwlp...@gmail.com [2008-01-08 17:40]:
It's. something altogether different.
mysql select * from foobar where test123 = NULL;
Err, that's not how NULL works in SQL. You don't compare things
to
Gerry Lawrence gwlp...@gmail.com writes:
(re:) Mysql comparison of DATE of -00-00 to NULL
It's not equal to null.
It's not not equal to null.
It's not greater than null.
It's not less than null.
It's not rlike null.
It's not null..
It's. something altogether
(I realized that the comparison to null was like that but the difference between where
and select -- whoa!
mysql SELECT * FROM date WHERE date IS NULL;
++
| date |
++
| -00-00 |
++
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
mysql SELECT date IS NULL, date IS NOT
On Jan 8, 2008 12:00 AM, Brian Marshall sn...@beyondboredom.net wrote:
I can't testify for any other database, but mysql lets you use the same
syntax for both operations.
INSERT INTO `foo` SET `bar` = 'foobar'
UPDATE `foo` SET `bar` = 'wombat' WHERE `bar` = 'foobar'
It even lets you mix the
Philip Newton wrote:
It even lets you mix the two with REPLACE INTO, which will do an
INSERT, unless the record is already present, in which case it'll do
an UPDATE instead.
Rather, it does a DELETE then an INSERT. Which I'd rate slightly more
hateful, since it's another entry towards any
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:43:51 -0500, num...@deathwyrm.com wrote:
Philip Newton wrote:
It even lets you mix the two with REPLACE INTO, which will do an
INSERT, unless the record is already present, in which case it'll do
an UPDATE instead.
Rather, it does a DELETE then an INSERT. Which
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:39:45 +, Jonathan Stowe j...@gellyfish.com wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 11:21 +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:43:51 -0500, num...@deathwyrm.com wrote:
Philip Newton wrote:
It even lets you mix the two with REPLACE INTO, which will do an
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:56:40 +0100, Philip Newton philip.new...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2008 11:48 AM, Daniel Pittman dan...@rimspace.net wrote:
You know what I hate? I hate the way that people keep coming back to
the idea of some sort of make the filesystem a database magic.
You know
On 08/01/2008, Bruce Richardson itsbr...@workshy.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 04:24:43PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
Doesn't that have to do with the hidden files system attributes that
windows uses? I have faint deja-vu feelings and remembrance that
SysInternals had a utility for
On 2008-01-08, at 04:48, Daniel Pittman wrote:
You know what I hate? I hate the way that people keep coming back to
the idea of some sort of make the filesystem a database magic.
Thank you.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 09:48:13PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
Yeah, if MySQL actually had referential integrity then this would be a
nasty problem.
You know what I hate? I hate the way that people keep coming back to
the idea of some sort of make the filesystem a database magic.
You
On Jan 8, 2008 6:56 AM, David Cantrell da...@cantrell.org.uk wrote:
You know what that would look like? MySQL. Oh, yeah, for sure, because
people don't want their file storage telling them that they can't delete
or rename a file for whatever reason.
This very stupidity doesn't prevent
* num...@deathwyrm.com num...@deathwyrm.com [2008-01-08 11:00]:
Rather, it does a DELETE then an INSERT.
I do, grudgingly, have to hand it to MySQL that its `ON CONFLICT
UPDATE` clause available for `INSERT` queries avoids this. It
does require that you can tell the rows apart by means of a
On 2008-01-08, at 03:43, num...@deathwyrm.com wrote:
Philip Newton wrote:
It even lets you mix the two with REPLACE INTO, which will do an
INSERT, unless the record is already present, in which case it'll do
an UPDATE instead.
You mean an UPDATE OR INSERT?
Rather, it does a DELETE then an
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 04:43:51AM -0500, num...@deathwyrm.com wrote:
Philip Newton wrote:
It even lets you mix the two with REPLACE INTO, which will do an
INSERT, unless the record is already present, in which case it'll do
an UPDATE instead.
Rather, it does a DELETE then an INSERT. Which
Why is the UPDATE syntax so different from INSERT? If I'm
constructing a SQL statement to insert or update based on the
existence of a row in some code, I have to have two completely
different cases to handle it. What were the SQL creators thinking?
What's strange is that I've been working
On 2008-01-07, at 13:49, Jeremy Stephens wrote:
Why is the UPDATE syntax so different from INSERT?
Because the people designing SQL were devotees of the English-
Likeness Monster. I've dumped enough hate about that on this list
recently.
Though that probably answers the question of WHY IS
When I'm generating SQL I just maintain a list of columns and
values (or a hash, or a pair of lists, or whatever is convenient
for the language) and run it through a map/apply operation to
generate the right syntax at the last minute.
I do that as well. Most recently I used that technique to
30 matches
Mail list logo
