[Info-vax] CRTL and RMS vs SSIO

[Dave Froble]

On 10/13/2021 7:23 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 10/13/2021 4:44 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 10/13/2021 12:42 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>> Den 2021-10-13 kl. 17:09, skrev Dave Froble:
>>>> On 10/13/2021 10:04 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2021 9:52 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>>> Excuse me, I'm just a dummy, come down out of the hills.  But:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Open file
>>>>>> 2) Access data
>>>>>> 3) Do some work
>>>>>> 4) Write/Update data
>>>>>> 5) Done
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Access database
>>>>>> 2) Access data
>>>>>> 3) Do some work
>>>>>> 4) Write/Update data
>>>>>> 5) Done
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guess I don't see much difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is because you describe *what* is being done not *how* it is
>>>>> done.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general you can expect:
>>>>>
>>>>> data maintenance - replacing a lot of application code with few
>>>>> lines of
>>>>> SQL
>>>>
>>>> You claim that, but I just don't see it.
>
> Try add a column or update some values.

Yep!  Every RDBMS I've seen, which isn't too many, is rather good at 
that.  Now, what does that have to do with "lot of application code"?

> With a relational database in is one SQL statement.
>
> With an index-sequential file it is writing a conversion program.

Not always.  With DAS that utility already exists.  And a bunch more 
utilities, that work with any DAS file.

RMS isn't the only product around ...

>>>>> applications with simple queries - slightly less code
>>>>>
>>>>> application code with complex queries - a lot less code
>>>>>
>>>>> adhoc just get some numbers - replacing a lot of application code with
>>>>> few lines of SQL
>>>>
>>>> Don't see that.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I've noticed that doing some things with SQL can be much more
>>>> complex.
>>>
>>> It is not clear what you have or haven't seen, but your conclusions
>>> are a bit weird. It is so much easier to do data maintanance and
>>> adhoq queries aginst a typical SQL database (such as Rdb) than to
>>> try that against RMS data files. You are just completely wrong.
>>
>> Ad hoc inquiries I'll give you.  RDBMS is great for that.
>>
>> But that wasn't in the discussion.  Arne claimed that it took code to
>> use an RDBMS, and with some exceptions, that just isn't always so.
>
> I listed 4 different types of problems.
>
> For two of them the relational database would mean replacing an
> application with a one liner of SQL.
>
> For two of them the relational database would mean an application
> with less code, because the SQL replaces functionality in the code
> with simple constructs.
>
>> Yes, "SELECT * Where Name Like "Dave" is rather simple.  But one must
>> still attach to the database.  Request a Recordset. and so on.
>>
>> A simple loop processing an RMS file looking in each record in the
>> field Name for "Dave" can be an open and a couple lines of code.
>>
>> Not such a big difference.
>
> Why I called that case for "slightly less code".
>
> But then comes the more complex stuff.

One gets what one pays for.  Yeah, an RDBMS can be a fine product.  If I 
were designing any new apps, I'd most likely choose to use an RDBMS.

I still feel that you're painting the gulf much wider than it actually is.


-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486