[Lazarus] Lazarus, Jedi etc.
reinierolislagers at gmail.com
Tue Jul 16 12:23:10 CEST 2013
On 16-7-2013 11:53, Henry Vermaak wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:22:44AM +0200, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
>> On 16-7-2013 11:17, Henry Vermaak wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 08:33:45AM +0000, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
>>>> If it really is so bad, why have so many developers- in particularly
>>>> web developers- clasped it to their bosom?
>>> Probably not, no, given that it's used by wikipedia, google, twitter,
>>> etc. It just seems like Graeme and Michael are complaining that it
>>> doesn't default to strict mode (i.e. traditional mode in mysql
>>> parlance). Lots of credibility lost if people rant about something that
>>> they can actually configure the way they like.
>> Would you happen to know how those people programmed their backends?
>> Using the crummy code mentioned in the thread or code that expects RDBMS
> Sorry, my crystal ball is in for repairs, you'll have to spell out your
> point for me.
Popularity does not necessarily correspond with the best solution. See
thread up to now.
>> There's lots of whacky code out there that still is used in production,
>> and patched endlessly whenever the next error pops up. Doesn't mean it's
>> a good idea to go down that path.
> A universal truth, but I can't see how it's unique to mysql?
As indicated in the thread, mysql does not enforce RDBMS concepts so
writing incorrect, loose code is easier/more inviting in comparison with
writing similar code for PostgreSQL, Firebird etc.
Similar to the bad reputation Microsoft Access got because it was so
easy to slap together some VBA/macros and call it an application.
>> That said, I agree about the configuring+ranting part, but I'm not sure
>> to what level of strictness you can actually configure MySQL. And I'm
>> not interested enough to find out - Firebird suits me just fine.
> Ranting from a position of ignorance seriously dilutes your credibility
> in my book.
I'm just saying the rants may be justified if mysql cannot be configured
to follow the RDBMS integrity norms.
Obviously you don't know if that is possible either, so let's give the
ranters the benefit of the doubt.
In case you were referring to me as a ranter: I wasn't complaining about
the integrity stuff; my issues are more with the ridiculous client
library version matching thing as well as the signs that Oracle are
making it as difficult as possible for others to fix bugs/get insight in
More information about the Lazarus