[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I continue to be bewildered by programmers'
fixation on datatypes. This has been a constant
theme for 6 years now. And in all that time, I
have never been able to figure out why so many
people think they need to know the "type" of a
"column".
The best theory I have is that people who have
always driven a stick shift must have difficulty
driving a car with an automatic transmission.
--
D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, in fact i do have some problems when switching to autogear but
indeed i like autogear a lot, but that was not the issue.
Suppose i am author of 'aspsqliteadmin', a webbased tool to manage your
sqlite database. I want to display a table, with in the headers the name
of the column and its type, sequent table rows contain the actual data.
The same issue is when writing any kind of abstraction layer. Like ODBC
interface, language wrapper or whatever. Interfacing SQLite is relative
easy, but there appears a compatability issue with other database's
behaviour. The lack of a strict column type in table definition, not
cell content per se, is an compatibility issue that apparently any
wrapper author discovers, and with sqlite it seems difficult to get a
hard table definition, even if you would like to create a new one. It is
like the car having a steering wheel of rubber.
Kind regards,
Rene
