On 12 Sep 2006 10:47:22 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why? I'm not requesting that dynamic typing be removed from
> sqlite. I'm not even requesting that the slander in the sqlite docs
> be removed. What I'm requesting is that these "features" of
> sqlite be better presented
On 12 Sep 2006 10:47:22 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you admit that Richard Hipp's characterization of SQL was
> rude. And now that we've established what you are, we're just
> haggling over price.
No, you've just managed to try and take the heat off of yourself. I
nev
On 12 Sep 2006 10:24:00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, knowing that, would you agree that
>
>
> If switching to a larger database such as PostgreSQL or Oracle
> is later necessary, the switch should be relatively easy.
>
>
> is misleading if not outright untruthful?
N
On 12 Sep 2006 09:31:54 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To use your specious analogy, it represents another way of doing
> > things, which you admit yourself works. That's your justification for
> > calling Richard Hipp a crackpot?
>
> What was Richard Hipp's justification
On 12 Sep 2006 08:29:34 -0700, Paul Rubin
<"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > But no one appreciates my finding those faults.
> >
> > No one appreciates the tone in which you report these alleged faults,
>
> Your tone is not so great either.
And what would you expect after someone who h
On 11 Sep 2006 23:29:28 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it was stated in the sqlite docs that ALL SQL databases
> use static types implying that sqlite will be incompatible
> with any "heavy" database should the need arise to migrate
> upwards. The issue is not that there
On 11 Sep 2006 21:35:28 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Owens wrote:
> > On 11 Sep 2006 18:23:50 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Can you run your car on diesel fuel?
> > >
> > > Why not
On 12 Sep 2006 00:15:41 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to be fair...
>
> You do hear many people claiming exactly that, and the primary
> complaint is often exactly the same one that's being levelled against
> sqlite here (it's incredibly lax with types and does sometim
On 9/11/06, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Furthermore, I'm not responding to Python's representation of one
> > thing or another. I am responding to some of the ridiculous and unfair
> > criticisms directed at SQLite. Whatever Python did or didn't do, or
> > whatever PySQLite does or
On 11 Sep 2006 18:23:50 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you run your car on diesel fuel?
>
> Why not?
>
> Because your car's specification says to use gasoline?
>
> If your car has been designed to run on diesel, you shouldn't
> be saying it has gasoline engine. Duh.
No
On 9/11/06, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure. But if you go back to the start of the thread you'll remember the
> OP was originally complaining that SQLite was being promoted in the
> Python docs as SQL compliant.
Define "SQL compliant." That's about as technically precise as saying
On 9/11/06, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In all seriousness, the information you present here is great, and
> much appreciated. Your sarcastic, condescending tone kind of gets in
> the way of the message, though.
Sarcastic, perhaps. Condesceding, I think not. It is ridiculous that
people ca
I coworker pointed me to this thread.
>>>and why it isn't SQL.
>> It isn't SQL simply because SQL won't let you insert text
>> into a numeric field.
> Yup, I have to agree that's pretty crappy. (Makes mental note to limit
> use of SQLite).
Ever heard of check constraints? That's another feature
13 matches
Mail list logo
