Eugene Elutin (12/18/2012)
To SELKO:GSquared (12/18/2012)
...So your point doesn't actually prove your point, if you get my point. 😀
On the other hand, code portability has certainly worked out well for you. You obviously have survived well by becoming a specialized organism in a specialized environment that fits your particular survival adaptations and assertions.
I do like your point and the way you pointed it out! :hehe:
There is actually one interesting example in IT world too.
There was recently one successful start-up IT company in UK, specialising in the Mobile phone games. Their initial idea was to develop games in portable code, so it could be played on different devices without much changes. They were very successful in this idea and they found venture capitalist to finance them. But after initial success and getting finance, they stopped concentrating on code portability, as to develop the best possible product for particular device (eg. OS) is often impossible (or financially unsustainable) without utilising of the proprietary device (OS) features.
With available financial power and relevant expertise, this company found that it's more appropriate and profitable to develops games for each OS separately using the most appropriate proprietor features of the OS. Yeah, they are not government department, so they cannot allow themselves to waste time and money as they are not founded by people taxes...
And on another hand, does Mr. CELKO, by providing the example of some "vendor" software disappearance in "few months time", implies that SQL Server is going to disappear soon and all SQL Server developers should prepare themselves to write code so it can be ported to DB2? 😉
Not exactly, on the part I added emphasis to.
He's made the point before, more clearly than he did here, that writing "portable code" in SQL, also includes writing code that can easily be ported to the next version of SQL Server.
If you write ANSI/ISO standard SQL, instead of specialized T-SQL extensions, then you can expect that SQL Server 2015 will support your queries, even if you wrote them on SQL Server 2000 originally.
It's another case of being "partially correct". Part of this is that "standards compliant SQL" is actually a moving target, as with other standards, since the standards themselves evolve over time.
Then there's the silliness of some of the standards, compared to what's expected by those who actually use the technology. For example, Truncate wasn't accepted into the standard until 2008. Before that, someone like Joe could go off on you for violating standards if you used Truncate. Since then, it's provable that you actually were complying with the what the standard should have been, you were just ahead of your time.
Innovation depends on violation of accepted practices and standards. But innovation doesn't necessarily imply improvement. Sometimes it does improve things, and sometimes it's just the Edsel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel).
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon