I have to heartily disagree that U2 has a sophisticated business rules engine. U2 Basic is such a limited language. It barely has functions, and you have to home brew almost everything.
Microsoft's T-SQL stored procedures are just as horrible to write as U2 Basic programs. As Jeff Atwood put it -- "Stored procedures should be considered database assembly language." [1] Why do you think Microsoft now allows you to call CLR code from stored procedures? Because it's so much more efficient to work with the data (i.e., enforce the business rules) in a modern language like C# that has *actual libraries* for doing useful things. I agree that business rules shouldn't be on the client -- but who says they have to be in the database? Look at the ever-so-popular MVC architecture. The models (i.e., the code that works with the database and enforces all of the business rules) are isolated from the views (i.e., the client/presentation code) entirely. -Rob [1]: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2004/10/who-needs-stored-procedures-anyways.html On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Kevin King <precisonl...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for what David said. Yes, there's the "limitation" that BASIC is the > only native supported language (not factoring external connectors), but as > a > language native to the environment, this BASIC is really pretty rich by > comparison to the stored procedure languages of other DBs. > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
