Conference ulysse::rdb_vms_competition

    I have not seen any comparisons. However, I do know that SMARTSTAR
    SQL has many more extensions to the SQL standard. Indeed, SMARTSTAR
    applications can automatically generate SQL statements that recreate
    everything from screens to reports. It is a complete language, rather
    than the ANSI standard SQL.
    
    Is it "better" than ours? That could be debated for years. It is
    a highly subjective statement. What I can say with certainty is
    that SMARTSTAR SQL has many extensions while VAX SQL closely parallels
    the ANSI standard.
    
    ---- Michael Booth

    Thanks for .1 - very useful.
    
    It looks from what you say as if Smartstar has the same built-in
    obsession with SQL that Oracle seems to, according to my very limited
    knowledge of the latter.
    
    Is there really any merit in trying to do everything - forms, reports,
    you name it - through SQL or SQL extensions?  Seems to me a bit like
    using a saucepan to barbecue a souffl�.  Surely the *only* intrinsic
    merits of SQL are in defining and accessing (at the programming level)
    relational databases? 
    
    Isn't the rest just a load of marketing hype dreamt up with glee
    by the cowboys?
    
    More convincing to sell the idea that everything, SQL included, should
    talk to data in exactly the same consistent *low-level* & transparent
    way, i.e. tying things together with DSRI is the only correct, "pure"
    way to do it. 
        
    Why don't we make a much louder noise about this?
    

    Oh - got it.  We're not cowboys.

    
     - Richard

I have a different way of looking at things.

SQL is a DML/DDL language defined by ANSI (originally by IBM, but what
the heck) primarily for embedding in programs (or modules).

What do ORACLE and SMARTSTAR offer?  Well, they offer "SQLTRIEVE".  In
other words, in addition to embedded SQL for DML/DDL purposes, they
offer a Datatrieve-like 4GL that uses an extended form of SQL for its
interface.  It's sort of like RDO vs Datatrieve.  Well, we provide the
ISQL equivalent of RDO, but we don't have a SQLTRIEVE equivalent of
Datatrieve.

Should we have a SQLTRIEVE?  Well, I suppose it would shut some people
up.  However, in terms of real end-user interfaces SQL sucks, and we
really need more neat workstation-type, Teamdata-like, interfaces.  In
terms of application development, SQLTRIEVE would be too procedural, and
we really need more true 4GL tools like RALLY, or some neat
workstation-type interfaces.

In other words, ORACLE and SMARTSTAR are offering yesterday's
technology.  However, by basing it on SQL instead of a proprietary
language (ala Datatrieve) they get a lot of marketing steam out of it. 
On the other hand, I'll bet there are more Datatrieve installations out
there than ORACLE, and SMARTSTAR, and (probably) INGRES installations
combined!

    These companies also offer tightly integrated products with
    a consistant interface.  Their dml/ddl are SQL, their reports
    and form tools are SQLish, their spreadsheets are SQLish, ...
    
    With Digital DML/DDL are SQL, everything else is its OWNish and
    not as tightly integrated.
    
    I think having the common language is very important, but not
    as important as the INTEGRATION that the other companies offer.

    Then again, Digital's products are not tied to just one database
    product.  Most work with RMS and DBMS

    Please be aware that SMARTSTAR SQL is not at all the same thing
    as Oracle SQL. SMARTSTAR has very user-friendly interfaces. It uses
    the keypad just as most VAX software does. It generates SQL out
    the BACK-END. That is quite different from the Oracle approach.
                                                                   
    To the customer, this approach is excellent. The users get a friendly
    interface. The programmers can use the friendly interfaces or drop
    into SQL. The genarted SQL code can be embedded into or called from
    a 3GL, so it blends into application development. In addition, the
    programmers generally would want to learn SMARTSTAR SQL. However,
    that is a trivial task when compared to learning all the different
    interfaces that would be inherent were it not for the SQL base.
                                                                   
    While other approaches are viable, the SMARTSTAR approach does have
    its marketing advantages (easy interfaces with SQL capability).
    
    I agree that from a technical purist viewpiont, SQL should be used
    only for database creation/modification/access. But the reality
    of the user community is different. Note the success of SMARTSTAR,
    PowerHouse (a language), Focus (a language).
    
    ---- Michael Booth