While I agree that many times simple explanations are desired, I also
support the point that accurate information is needed when simple
explanations are given.

As you say, this is just my opinion, but I strongly recommend MySQL and
would never even begin to consider it a "cut down" version of anything.  The
use of MySQL combined with php to created database driven dynamic web sites
has helped our business to grow in a time when everyone and their brother
and sister claims to be able to create web pages.

Just my $.02 worth - simple is often good, but accuracy is equally important
if not more so. (No intention to start a flame war, just wanted to give my
opinion.)

Thanks,
Keith D Sellars
WebGraffix
www.webgraffix.com

"Making database sites seem easy"

----- Original Message -----
From: "gail" <gail(at)ravendreams.co.uk>
To: <ml(at)digitaldaze.com>; <hwg-languages(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: Programming Languages


> Mailing List Account wrote:
>
> >I did want to clarify/correct a couple of items in one of the posts...
> >
> >>PHP - originally stood for Phil's Home Page, but got upgraded to
> >>Hypertext Pre-processor (which so matches the PHP!)
> >>
> >
> >Nitpick time... the original name was PHP/FI which meant "Personal Home
> >Page/Form Interpreter".  Okay, so not too many people know that these
> >days... Not sure where you got "Phil" from... PHP was created by Rasmus
> >Lerdorf
> >
> Point taken. Consider Nit picked!
>
> >>MySQL - a cut down version of SQL (Now don't start screaming all at
> >>once! This is the simple explanation!)
> >>
> You sure took that to heart didn't you...
>
> >> Can't cope with the sheer amount
> >>of data that full SQL can,
> >>
> >
> >The above is very misleading.  Sure you can call it a "cut down" version
> >of the SQL language because it does not include every little feature in
> >the SQL specification.  But it definitely *can* cope with the sheer
amount
> >of data that fuil SQL can, in fact in head to head tests against SQL
> >Server, Oracle and others, MySQL has been know to outperform them.  MySQL
> >is optimized for speed of processing queries and is ideal for website
use.
> >The big bloated SQLs (SQL Server, Oracle) overhead slows them down when
> >under pressure.
> >
> How big of a can of worms do you want to open here? This is a real
> personal opinion based thing as to who wins and as to many years of
> experience, MySQL does have a cut off point where amount of
> functionality begins to collide with amount of data - granted that limit
> is exceptionally high and I personally have only encountered one
> situation where only SQL would do (and we went for DB2 anyway).
>
> CGI - point taken.
>
> Can any of you sad-o's with absolutely no sense of humor and no life get
> the point that someone (actually quite a few by the ammount of off list
> responces I have had) who has never even heard of half this stuff needed
> a SIMPLE explination. Just enough info to be able to not feel so dumb
> when going into the bookstore or reading the subject lines of this list.
> It's the OTT, geek encrusted, nitpicking that puts newbees off.
>
> And Java is still slow. :p=
> gail
>
>
>
>

HWG: hwg-languages mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA