Re: RPG vs SQL

[Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

JK wrote:
>  Question: Is it possible that iSeries SQL allows non-standard SQL
> extensions or have the ASC programmers cleverly parsed and reformatted the
> statement to allow their own syntax? I'm making a note for next week to ask
> their tech-support about this, but thought I'd see whether anyone on this
> list has already investigated this.
>   
I'll bet dollars to donuts that ASC cleverly repackages the statement.  
That's because IBM adheres very strongly to the ANSI standard.  
Microsoft, Informix and Oracle all have their own specialized syntax.  
That's why I don't find the "database independence" argument very 
compelling.  In order to get decent performance out of most databases or 
to avoid horribly ungainly syntax you need to use the database-specific 
extensions.  The second you do that, your code WILL NOT RUN on any other 
database.

So, I suggest that if database independence is an issue that you stick 
tightly to full ANSI compliance for any SQL.  Your code will be ugly and 
might not run as well, but it will run on any engine that is ANSI 
compliant.  Of course, that's also an issue: every vendor has different 
levels of ANSI compliance.

The beauty of SQL standards: there are so many of them!

Joe