Slashdot Mirror

I believe it is to do with web browser clients connecting to remote servers and making transactions:

http://knowledgebase.progress....

I was referring to this RDBMS:

http://www.progress.com/en/openedge/enterprise-rdbms.html

Back in the mid 90s it used its own internal d/b, but could be attached to others via ODBC if needed. The 4GL language & RAD environment were more impressive, especially for quick development & deployment on 80x24 terminals in legacy environments. Days long gone...*sigh*

You mean like Progress? Since OE10 Webspeed errors have dropped off considerably... http://web.progress.com/openedge/webspeed-worshop.html

Then you might know of a product called PowerTier, later renamed to DataXtend CE. That was an ORM for C++ and Java from Persistence, which was also acquired by Progress. We started using that at version 5 or 6 around 2000/2001 time frame.

List out the current list of products that qualify as "Something Better" than SQL Server.

For one, Progress OpenEdge. My experience from working with both is that Progress is better, faster, cheaper (lowest TCO of the major RDMBS products), and is multi-platform (who is running SQL Server on Linux?). It has a very powerful toolset with the option of using a rich and intuitive 4GL or SQL. It takes next to nothing to maintain--just throw it over the wall and let it hum. And it has good connectors to Oracle, SQL Server, et al, so you can easily have a multi-product shop (which, in the age of acquisitions, is inevitable).

I'd pick Progress over SQL Server every day of the week and twice on Sunday, and I would pick Progress over Oracle for any project except extremely large (>1 TB) databases.

These folks might not appreciate it.

Nice image.

But it's not necessarily a misspelling of "Postgres". There is a relational DB called Progress, and it's actually rather nice. In particular the integration between the scripting language and the database is very clever indeed.

It's a shame that they didn't manage to catch the internet wave more fully, by being more open, and adding cgi support, and porting to Linux. I remember trying to run the damn SCO binary under iBCS2 years ago.

Progress is a much better language.

Hoo Ya!

Progress Rocks!"

Progress Rocks!"

Translation Management Guide is a PDF file. More docs here

Translation Management Guide is a PDF file. More docs here

You are right in that the type classes provide a form of overloading. However, the argument that Haskell is not object-oriented is a sticky one at best. The most fundamental problem is that OO does not have a universal definition. Even languages such as Progress and Perl claim to be OO, when they are not OO by any reasonable definition.

Haskell provides all the features usually included in definitions of OO, however, it doesn't lump all the functionality together in a single megaconstruct as most traditional OO languages do. Instead, it breaks up the functionality among many relatively simple language constructs. These constructs can be used together so that your code is virtually identical to object-oriented languages. However, you could also use the features together in different ways to come up with something completely different.

The definition for OO that is most commonly accepted as reasonable is that objects are a language feature that provide encapsulation, inheritance, and some kind of polymorphism.

Encapsulation is performed by Haskell's module system. Type classes don't really have that much to do with encapsulation.

Essentially, type classes enhances Haskell's polymorphism, which is a feature claimed by OO programming. Type classes compliment the parametric polymorphism already inherent in haskell's type system with a controlled variant of ad-hoc polymorphism. Essentially, it enhances Haskell's polymorphism, which is a feature claimed by OO programming.

Type classes also provide much more flexible form of interface inheritance through class extensions. For example, multiple inheritance is clean and not at all problematic in Haskell. Furthermore, multiparameter type classes provide functionality that is very difficult to describe in OO jargon. (Roughly, think multiple objects that together instanstiate a class, and if you change just one object, they together instanstiate an entirely different class.)

Type classes provide a limited form of implementation inheritance through the generality of Haskells "instance" construct.

Sometimes OO definitions require a form of dynamic dispatch, where the particular function to actually use is selected at run-time. This can be accomplished by using existential typing, which is a language extension offered by Hugs, GHC, and HBC.

Sometimes OO definitions require that objects must have mutable state. This is can be accomplished, among other things, by the use of monads.

Monads are commonly misunderstood by those that haven't used them. One of the most common misconceptions is that monads are a language feature. Rather they are a specific programming idiom that can be used in any language that provides higher-order functions, such as Lisp or SML. Haskell simply adopted this idiom as a standard way to do a variety of things, including I/O. Haskell eases the use of monads by the addition of the "do-notation". Other than this optional alternative syntax to writing monads, there is nothing special about them in the language itself.

They have been in business for a long time, primarely with their RDBMS&4GL environment. At work we mainly use this product for development. Red Hat Linux is a supported platform. It's a pretty decent product, while the RDBMS may not be the fastest around, it is quite robust. Another adventure into the world of open source is the creation of an open sourced framework for the development of internet applications, POSSE

It's really sad to see the company whose software you use at work involved in this kind of mess. I surely hope that the issues can be resolved, this is not what we need in the fight against Bill of Borg :-)

While this background info may or may not help in clarifying the dispute itself, it may help understanding the NuSphere post Michael posted a link to. Meaning: I think that MySQL AB are the good guys in this situation, and the closed source background of the Nusphere people may have something to do misunderstandings that appearantly exist...

Cheers!

Does anybody else here find it horribly fascinating that Progress -- creators of Progress (a high-end, commercial RDBMS), WebSpeed and SonicMQ -- is expending time, effort and money in developing and marketing MySQL, a rival RDBMS?

PROGRESS Software has had a documented feature that includes a "sliding window" for date representation at system startup, which has been a part of their application since at least 1990. That's definitely prior art.