Humans are fairly interesting in how their social development probably has more impact on their abilities than their biological potential.
In other words, the person with the best "brain" in the world could still end up as a druggy working at McD dropping out of school after failing, if they met the wrong people and made the wrong choices.
In a similar way, I pick up maths lightyears faster than my girlfriend: except I gave up on applied maths after graduating, while she continued in that field: result, she's a lot better than me at it. My "body" is still better at maths than hers, but I'm not using it, thus the result. Simple as that.
Microsoft will actually give you just about everything you need, for a few bucks (like douzans of developer licenses, quite a bit more than MSDN would give, for a fraction of the price), for a few years, if you're registered as a company and tell em you want to make a tool on top of their technology (or well, any software meant to be published, shrink wrapped, etc), and that includes plugins, so I doubt thats the issue here.
Cansdale is handing Microsoft and.NET developers a valuable tool for free
Only free for non-commercial use, so not quite free. Also, as someone who uses VS:Team Edition everyday at work, and use TestDriven.NET at home, they really are so different, and have such different purposes, they are not competition to each other. Team Edition's Unit Testing tool is very limited, and its intended purpose is to allow a project manager or team leader to track bugs dynamically in a project, using charts and stuff. So you're very unlikely to do TDD with it (it lacks a lot of functionalities that would be required to do the tests first, effectively... it CAN be done, and they provide guidances for it, but it sucks, and when you talk to them face to face, they know it, and will tell you its simply not its purpose). Some other TDD tool developers got MVP status and even got it renewed, instead of revoked, more than once.
This really has everything to do with it being a plugin for VS Express, and even if you made one that didnt compete with MS at all, they'd be pissy too.
Thats so true. The thing is, in software developement, for developers with X years of experience, and exactly the same skillset on their resume, you'll have actual variation in skills going to a factor of 10 and more. But too often, HR will go "How many certifications do you have? How long exactly, in months, did you work with this technology?", and stop there... Not counting that having 5 years experience working with technology Y here and there will never equate to working with it for 2 years 40 hours a week, and that the guy who only cares about his paycheck will never be able to match the guy who lives for that stuff, even with 5 times the experience.
Personally, I don't even have a CS degree, and parallel programming feels fairly intuitive to me, it is just a bit trickier to debug (obviously, since most mainstream debugging tools are weak in that department), but thats it, and I've done some pretty complicated stuff...
I agree with you. Besides, people always complain that producers spend too much of their budget on special effects, and not enough on plot, story, etc. Well, thats exactly what would happen if this was made "Final Fantasy" quality. Now by taking a bit of a hit on the visuals, they can spend some ressources elsewhere. Plus, it really looks just fine to me.
I'm not american, but I too also work with a lot of amazingly skilled immigrants. The problem is really, if we're going to let immigrants come to fill in positions that can be filled from inside our own country, I'm all for it: but something has to be done to make sure thats whats its used for, because in practice, its heavily 50/50.
I'd almost be for completly eliminating the quotas on this particular type of immigration, if someone could garentee it would only be to hire for companies that actually need em.
SQL Server 2000 does have OLAP/Datawarehousing. It came in, in the second edition of SQL Server 7, I beleive.
And I know he wasn't talking about weather or not its integrated. The thing is, he was saying how a relational database won't be on par for performance in datawarehousing/BI environments. That is correct, except when you install SQL Server, you get more than one "engine". The main one that everyone thinks about is a relational database. Analysis Services is NOT a relational database. It is an OLAP cubing environment. You can't do something like that in a relational database. Or well, you can, but you'd have to implement something incredibly complex, error prone, and in the end, probably incompatible with your "main" model.
So yes: a relational database would SUCK for this purpose. But the more featureful DBMSs have more than just a relational engine in them, in the case of SQL Server with datawarehousing, you end up having "2" databases, one relational, and the other an exact copy, but running on a datawarehousing engine, and it performs crazy well (ironically, we work for the exact same kind of company... I wouldn't be surprised if we worked for the same one in a different branch, to be honest...)
From the description you pasted (and I didnt check on my own), the wording is a bit misleading: its talking about streaming the result set itself for when it has a lot of -rows-, not streaming a single field when that field is too large. And the rest simply talks about what size of blobs it can push at all.
What the other poster meant, is let say I have a 1 gigabytes AVI file in a row, its possible (at least with other DBMS) to open that particular -field- as if it was a file on the file system, and to stream it byte by byte (and insert the same way too), instead of doing it in one shot, which could destroy your server's memory.
The catch is that large web based social networking sites are fairly simplistic when it comes to the database design. In more "enterprise"-like apps (I hate overusing that term, since what it means is so vague, but Im sure you can guess), the amount of joins and long running transactions and datamining queries you need to make will almost systematically trash MySQL to the crawling point.
So you're right on most everything else you said, but comparing web based social networking sites (which have incredible amounts of simple queries, the vast majority that are reads) to, well, EVERYTHING ELSE, is a bit unfair too:)
I wouldnt bet my soul on it, but I was under the impression Google mostly used MySQL for internal system uses, not for their actual customer facing services...
You're totally right and correct, sorry if I wasn't clear in my point. I just meant that "Needing a small DB for a small project, and it has to be free" isn't one of the arguments FOR mysql anymore. There are other arguments of course, but for the SAME reason probably 2/3rd of Oracle users really do so because its "buzz word compliant", and really don't need Oracle, a LOT of MySQL users do it because its all they know and so many people use it.
Funny enough, if everyone used the right DB for them, the numbers would probably be similar to what they are now, just reversed (a bunch of MySQL user should switch to Oracle, MS SQL, etc, and a bunch of Oracle and MS SQL addicts would use MySQL...)
Yup, I'm our company's SSIS guru (I don't know how I ended up there, I'm an asp.net developer, but oh well...), and it is great, we even use it to do some system orchestration between a bunch of legacy system, our business partners, DB2, and a bunch of other things (even using some custom SSIS tasks and components that I made). Its awesome.
In this day and age, the data engine itself is just one part of the equation.
Thats a bit (but not completly) less true now than it was a few years ago. Most of the commercial databases now have free offerings and can be administrated by a child. If you're on Linux or something, then its nice, its probably just a command line away to install it and then its perfect, yes. On Windows however, might as well use SQL Server Express or something.
Btw, #3 is actually a -crazy- big deal. DBMS like Oracle and SQL Server, for all their flaws, have incredibly powerful tools to integrate with legacy environment. There are NOT many ETL specialists around, and those that are free tend to charge premium for their services, making less well known products (3rd party) to be prohibitively expensive to use in the long run, so you're better off using the built in stuff. The commercial DBMS tend to be a blessing in that department.
The more advanced RDBMS engines have OLAP/Datawarehousing support built in. For example, in SQL Server, thats SSAS, and it works wonderfully well, and is as integrated as it can be. Oh, one can argue that its technically a "separate" database, but from an installation, licensing and development point of view, they're one and the same. (Analysis Services also happens to be the market leader in that department...).
Thats just an example, and while thats Microsoft, I'm sure there are plenty of non-Microsoft equivalents for relational databases and olap cubes being integrated as one (and a half?) product.
"Real coders" are obsolete because from a cost effectiveness point of view, where most of the "coding" gets done (businesses that are not directly related to IT), it is not very useful. The main problem in a business environment isn't getting the stuff CODED, its actually figuring out how the business work so you can manage and/or automate some of it. Thats a LOT harder than coding ever will be (in those environments at least...), and the amount of people who both have the skill to handle the business analysis and system architecture part of things AND code like a hardcode "hacker" (not in the blackhat sense), are so stupidly rare its not even worth mentionning.
So between people who can code like gods, but can understand why a business has priorities that might not make sense to your average IT guy, and someone with god-like business analysis and software development skill, but might not know how some low level things work, it is usually a smarter idea to go for the later.
Of course, there are the extremes. Ever heard someone tell you that most web servers are single threaded? I have >.>
The company I work for has old stuff built on top of Powerbuilder, and we have to pay premiums to a consulting firm to keep the stuff maintained, since the original developers are long gone now. Worse is, the developers of the consulting firm aren't even good at all, but its all we could find... so I can definately confirm what you're saying...
Something may be forbidden by the college rules, yet perfectly legal as far as a court of law is concerned
Of course, a very large amount of reputable colleges make student sign legally binding contracts stating the student agrees not to cheat, and breaking contracts tend to be something you can be pulled in court for. I can't say I know an instance where that was used, but its there in quite a few colleges.
Indeed, its probably better to drop it, but just to settle something: I personally always go with the "best tool for the job" philosophy, and i'm always looking for ways to improve what I do. What that means is, I actually HAVE been doing benchmarks on every versions of SQL server I've used, sniffed network traffic, personally discussed with some of microsoft's engineers, stressed test real life scenarios:) I -do- work for for an extremely large corportation, so these things tend to be crucial. One of the main thing is that the network traffic is only for very long and complex queries, and it evens out with certain techniques that are very hard to use in SPs while keeping them maintainable, that can save truckload on network traffic by returning a minimum of data, so that part more or less evens out (or at least, it depends on the type of application you're making)
The security thing, well, that we could argue all day and it depends how you do things, so I won't say anything for or against that: it depends on your architecture. It can actually hurt in certain scenarios, btw (rare though). And manageability, thats actually where the argument against SPs tend to be...so that too, is seriously a matter of opinion.
For now though, I'm currently working on a project where the architect decided to make us write 90% of the code in SPs (the other extreme case. Where there's 20 lines of SP for every line of C#, you know something's weird). Driving me totally insane.
Anyhow, in the end, I do agree with you on certain points. SPs ARE the right tool for certain jobs. Making an entire, composite, service vased, multi-environments, cross-database, efficient, and easy to maintain enterprise system, with ONLY SPs, is down right impossible. The important part is to UNDERSTAND the fors and the against, and pick accordingly. And -only- in the Microsoft world (blogs, forums, etc) will you EVER hear the "SP-only" thing. In the rest of the world (java, C++, unix, etc), they use both. As it should be:)
Wow, and this was supposed to be a short reply. I promise I won't answer to this ever again, hahaha!
And if you bought those shares a few months back, you're probably feeling freakishly rich right now. I work for Valero, and they set on our homepage their stock ticker thingy.
I swear, the thing visibly goes up everyday. Something like what now? 25%+ since january?
Honestly, from what I see, it is incredibly unlikely that no open source software violates MS patents. With this silly system, everyone violates everyone's patents, and with the amount MS has, some have to be valid.
What happened is probably the typical "two headed" deal that is so common with large companies: someone decided to open their mouth about patent issues. Someone higher up saw it only after the fact, and is now doing damage control. MS has a lot to win in not sueing, mainly showing that its not an "evil monopoly" anymore and that other companies can still compete with them, which would get them (in the long run) a lot more money than a lawsuit.
So chances are pretty good that MS can sue, but decided it has better things to do. So much better, that your boss shouldn't be worried to switch to alternatives.
Re:Stop with the Johnny Depp nonsense
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 1
I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing people justify their *ILLEGAL* copying activities which achieve *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* for me as an honest consumer of music and movies.
I remember reading somewhere that some theories show that it is completly, totally, fully impossible for a human being to do something they think is wrong, or at the very least, something that isn't benefitial to themselves (at least in perception).
So really, all this is, is an attempt to show that people getting a free ride is a good thing(tm) so they don't have to stop, plain and simple.
Did you know that msdn has a lot of mistakes and errors, especially when it comes to SQL Server? Hell, I personally talked with some of its own engineers that had to be corrected by their superiors afte a discussion about its inner working. Thats not counting the insane amount of syntax error in their samples on SSIS, for example.:) That being said, that omits a simple detail: again, anything in a SP can be done in a dynamic sql statement.
That means conditionals, loops, temporary tables, transactions, you name it. It -all- can be done. Take -any- stored procedure you made, remove the SP declaration (that gets replaced by the parameter insertion), and you're good to go. The first time I had this argument, I goofed around and tried it with a 1.5k line SP. Works pretty good. And the query plan will be the exact same.
All these performance arguments come from 2 urban legends. #1: That there's something special about query plans in SQL Server when it comes to SPs. Thats wrong, you can dig in the documentation, or better yet, ask the SQL Server team directly: the code of the SP is literally stored as is, and when its invoked, its sent in the SAME pipe as dynamic queries get sent to, the query plan is created, the query is hashed and that hash is stored with the plan. If you send a dynamic sql, it goes through the same pipe, and the same process, in the same order. Hell, I think (but am not positive) that if you were to send a dynamic sql that matched the SP, you could reuse the SP's plan indirectly:)
But yes: you can make an impossibly large dynamic sql query with conditional logic, loops, you can even declare variables, yadah yadah. Only some things that are structure specific won't go, like return values (have to use output parameters instead) and such, and it all gets the exact same kind of execution plan, that gets reused the exact same way. Most people don't seem to realise that. Anything else is pure misinformation, that is quite common, even among Microsoft's own employes. Its funny really.
You'll still want to use some server side programming though. User defined functions are a blessing, even with param queries.
Slashdot Mirror
Humans are fairly interesting in how their social development probably has more impact on their abilities than their biological potential.
In other words, the person with the best "brain" in the world could still end up as a druggy working at McD dropping out of school after failing, if they met the wrong people and made the wrong choices.
In a similar way, I pick up maths lightyears faster than my girlfriend: except I gave up on applied maths after graduating, while she continued in that field: result, she's a lot better than me at it. My "body" is still better at maths than hers, but I'm not using it, thus the result. Simple as that.
Different brain development, not better brain development.
Microsoft will actually give you just about everything you need, for a few bucks (like douzans of developer licenses, quite a bit more than MSDN would give, for a fraction of the price), for a few years, if you're registered as a company and tell em you want to make a tool on top of their technology (or well, any software meant to be published, shrink wrapped, etc), and that includes plugins, so I doubt thats the issue here.
Only free for non-commercial use, so not quite free. Also, as someone who uses VS:Team Edition everyday at work, and use TestDriven.NET at home, they really are so different, and have such different purposes, they are not competition to each other. Team Edition's Unit Testing tool is very limited, and its intended purpose is to allow a project manager or team leader to track bugs dynamically in a project, using charts and stuff. So you're very unlikely to do TDD with it (it lacks a lot of functionalities that would be required to do the tests first, effectively... it CAN be done, and they provide guidances for it, but it sucks, and when you talk to them face to face, they know it, and will tell you its simply not its purpose). Some other TDD tool developers got MVP status and even got it renewed, instead of revoked, more than once.
This really has everything to do with it being a plugin for VS Express, and even if you made one that didnt compete with MS at all, they'd be pissy too.
Thats so true. The thing is, in software developement, for developers with X years of experience, and exactly the same skillset on their resume, you'll have actual variation in skills going to a factor of 10 and more. But too often, HR will go "How many certifications do you have? How long exactly, in months, did you work with this technology?", and stop there... Not counting that having 5 years experience working with technology Y here and there will never equate to working with it for 2 years 40 hours a week, and that the guy who only cares about his paycheck will never be able to match the guy who lives for that stuff, even with 5 times the experience.
Personally, I don't even have a CS degree, and parallel programming feels fairly intuitive to me, it is just a bit trickier to debug (obviously, since most mainstream debugging tools are weak in that department), but thats it, and I've done some pretty complicated stuff...
I agree with you. Besides, people always complain that producers spend too much of their budget on special effects, and not enough on plot, story, etc. Well, thats exactly what would happen if this was made "Final Fantasy" quality. Now by taking a bit of a hit on the visuals, they can spend some ressources elsewhere. Plus, it really looks just fine to me.
I'm not american, but I too also work with a lot of amazingly skilled immigrants. The problem is really, if we're going to let immigrants come to fill in positions that can be filled from inside our own country, I'm all for it: but something has to be done to make sure thats whats its used for, because in practice, its heavily 50/50.
I'd almost be for completly eliminating the quotas on this particular type of immigration, if someone could garentee it would only be to hire for companies that actually need em.
SQL Server 2000 does have OLAP/Datawarehousing. It came in, in the second edition of SQL Server 7, I beleive.
And I know he wasn't talking about weather or not its integrated. The thing is, he was saying how a relational database won't be on par for performance in datawarehousing/BI environments. That is correct, except when you install SQL Server, you get more than one "engine". The main one that everyone thinks about is a relational database. Analysis Services is NOT a relational database. It is an OLAP cubing environment. You can't do something like that in a relational database. Or well, you can, but you'd have to implement something incredibly complex, error prone, and in the end, probably incompatible with your "main" model.
So yes: a relational database would SUCK for this purpose. But the more featureful DBMSs have more than just a relational engine in them, in the case of SQL Server with datawarehousing, you end up having "2" databases, one relational, and the other an exact copy, but running on a datawarehousing engine, and it performs crazy well (ironically, we work for the exact same kind of company... I wouldn't be surprised if we worked for the same one in a different branch, to be honest...)
From the description you pasted (and I didnt check on my own), the wording is a bit misleading: its talking about streaming the result set itself for when it has a lot of -rows-, not streaming a single field when that field is too large. And the rest simply talks about what size of blobs it can push at all.
What the other poster meant, is let say I have a 1 gigabytes AVI file in a row, its possible (at least with other DBMS) to open that particular -field- as if it was a file on the file system, and to stream it byte by byte (and insert the same way too), instead of doing it in one shot, which could destroy your server's memory.
The catch is that large web based social networking sites are fairly simplistic when it comes to the database design. In more "enterprise"-like apps (I hate overusing that term, since what it means is so vague, but Im sure you can guess), the amount of joins and long running transactions and datamining queries you need to make will almost systematically trash MySQL to the crawling point.
:)
So you're right on most everything else you said, but comparing web based social networking sites (which have incredible amounts of simple queries, the vast majority that are reads) to, well, EVERYTHING ELSE, is a bit unfair too
I wouldnt bet my soul on it, but I was under the impression Google mostly used MySQL for internal system uses, not for their actual customer facing services...
You're totally right and correct, sorry if I wasn't clear in my point. I just meant that "Needing a small DB for a small project, and it has to be free" isn't one of the arguments FOR mysql anymore. There are other arguments of course, but for the SAME reason probably 2/3rd of Oracle users really do so because its "buzz word compliant", and really don't need Oracle, a LOT of MySQL users do it because its all they know and so many people use it.
Funny enough, if everyone used the right DB for them, the numbers would probably be similar to what they are now, just reversed (a bunch of MySQL user should switch to Oracle, MS SQL, etc, and a bunch of Oracle and MS SQL addicts would use MySQL...)
Yup, I'm our company's SSIS guru (I don't know how I ended up there, I'm an asp.net developer, but oh well...), and it is great, we even use it to do some system orchestration between a bunch of legacy system, our business partners, DB2, and a bunch of other things (even using some custom SSIS tasks and components that I made). Its awesome.
In this day and age, the data engine itself is just one part of the equation.
Thats a bit (but not completly) less true now than it was a few years ago. Most of the commercial databases now have free offerings and can be administrated by a child. If you're on Linux or something, then its nice, its probably just a command line away to install it and then its perfect, yes. On Windows however, might as well use SQL Server Express or something.
Btw, #3 is actually a -crazy- big deal. DBMS like Oracle and SQL Server, for all their flaws, have incredibly powerful tools to integrate with legacy environment. There are NOT many ETL specialists around, and those that are free tend to charge premium for their services, making less well known products (3rd party) to be prohibitively expensive to use in the long run, so you're better off using the built in stuff. The commercial DBMS tend to be a blessing in that department.
The more advanced RDBMS engines have OLAP/Datawarehousing support built in. For example, in SQL Server, thats SSAS, and it works wonderfully well, and is as integrated as it can be. Oh, one can argue that its technically a "separate" database, but from an installation, licensing and development point of view, they're one and the same. (Analysis Services also happens to be the market leader in that department...).
Thats just an example, and while thats Microsoft, I'm sure there are plenty of non-Microsoft equivalents for relational databases and olap cubes being integrated as one (and a half?) product.
"Real coders" are obsolete because from a cost effectiveness point of view, where most of the "coding" gets done (businesses that are not directly related to IT), it is not very useful. The main problem in a business environment isn't getting the stuff CODED, its actually figuring out how the business work so you can manage and/or automate some of it. Thats a LOT harder than coding ever will be (in those environments at least...), and the amount of people who both have the skill to handle the business analysis and system architecture part of things AND code like a hardcode "hacker" (not in the blackhat sense), are so stupidly rare its not even worth mentionning.
So between people who can code like gods, but can understand why a business has priorities that might not make sense to your average IT guy, and someone with god-like business analysis and software development skill, but might not know how some low level things work, it is usually a smarter idea to go for the later.
Of course, there are the extremes. Ever heard someone tell you that most web servers are single threaded? I have >.>
The company I work for has old stuff built on top of Powerbuilder, and we have to pay premiums to a consulting firm to keep the stuff maintained, since the original developers are long gone now. Worse is, the developers of the consulting firm aren't even good at all, but its all we could find... so I can definately confirm what you're saying...
Indeed, its probably better to drop it, but just to settle something: I personally always go with the "best tool for the job" philosophy, and i'm always looking for ways to improve what I do. What that means is, I actually HAVE been doing benchmarks on every versions of SQL server I've used, sniffed network traffic, personally discussed with some of microsoft's engineers, stressed test real life scenarios :) I -do- work for for an extremely large corportation, so these things tend to be crucial. One of the main thing is that the network traffic is only for very long and complex queries, and it evens out with certain techniques that are very hard to use in SPs while keeping them maintainable, that can save truckload on network traffic by returning a minimum of data, so that part more or less evens out (or at least, it depends on the type of application you're making)
:)
The security thing, well, that we could argue all day and it depends how you do things, so I won't say anything for or against that: it depends on your architecture. It can actually hurt in certain scenarios, btw (rare though). And manageability, thats actually where the argument against SPs tend to be...so that too, is seriously a matter of opinion.
For now though, I'm currently working on a project where the architect decided to make us write 90% of the code in SPs (the other extreme case. Where there's 20 lines of SP for every line of C#, you know something's weird). Driving me totally insane.
Anyhow, in the end, I do agree with you on certain points. SPs ARE the right tool for certain jobs. Making an entire, composite, service vased, multi-environments, cross-database, efficient, and easy to maintain enterprise system, with ONLY SPs, is down right impossible. The important part is to UNDERSTAND the fors and the against, and pick accordingly. And -only- in the Microsoft world (blogs, forums, etc) will you EVER hear the "SP-only" thing. In the rest of the world (java, C++, unix, etc), they use both. As it should be
Wow, and this was supposed to be a short reply. I promise I won't answer to this ever again, hahaha!
Well, they DID say it could semi-accurately identify genders. I think that would make it easy to identify within that 95%
And if you bought those shares a few months back, you're probably feeling freakishly rich right now. I work for Valero, and they set on our homepage their stock ticker thingy.
I swear, the thing visibly goes up everyday. Something like what now? 25%+ since january?
Honestly, from what I see, it is incredibly unlikely that no open source software violates MS patents. With this silly system, everyone violates everyone's patents, and with the amount MS has, some have to be valid.
What happened is probably the typical "two headed" deal that is so common with large companies: someone decided to open their mouth about patent issues. Someone higher up saw it only after the fact, and is now doing damage control. MS has a lot to win in not sueing, mainly showing that its not an "evil monopoly" anymore and that other companies can still compete with them, which would get them (in the long run) a lot more money than a lawsuit.
So chances are pretty good that MS can sue, but decided it has better things to do. So much better, that your boss shouldn't be worried to switch to alternatives.
Did you know that msdn has a lot of mistakes and errors, especially when it comes to SQL Server? Hell, I personally talked with some of its own engineers that had to be corrected by their superiors afte a discussion about its inner working. Thats not counting the insane amount of syntax error in their samples on SSIS, for example. :) That being said, that omits a simple detail: again, anything in a SP can be done in a dynamic sql statement.
:)
That means conditionals, loops, temporary tables, transactions, you name it. It -all- can be done. Take -any- stored procedure you made, remove the SP declaration (that gets replaced by the parameter insertion), and you're good to go. The first time I had this argument, I goofed around and tried it with a 1.5k line SP. Works pretty good. And the query plan will be the exact same.
All these performance arguments come from 2 urban legends. #1: That there's something special about query plans in SQL Server when it comes to SPs. Thats wrong, you can dig in the documentation, or better yet, ask the SQL Server team directly: the code of the SP is literally stored as is, and when its invoked, its sent in the SAME pipe as dynamic queries get sent to, the query plan is created, the query is hashed and that hash is stored with the plan. If you send a dynamic sql, it goes through the same pipe, and the same process, in the same order. Hell, I think (but am not positive) that if you were to send a dynamic sql that matched the SP, you could reuse the SP's plan indirectly
But yes: you can make an impossibly large dynamic sql query with conditional logic, loops, you can even declare variables, yadah yadah. Only some things that are structure specific won't go, like return values (have to use output parameters instead) and such, and it all gets the exact same kind of execution plan, that gets reused the exact same way. Most people don't seem to realise that. Anything else is pure misinformation, that is quite common, even among Microsoft's own employes. Its funny really.
You'll still want to use some server side programming though. User defined functions are a blessing, even with param queries.