[KLUG Members] database programming question

[bill]

On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 09:09, Bruce Smith wrote:
> Just when everyone thought this thread had died ...  it's back!  :-)

aaaaahh, the zombie thread.

> > > and I don't like where we're headed.  There is a big
> > > advantage of doing thing correctly.
> > 
> > Hard to do if you assume that whatever you're doing now must be better.
> 
> I'm not assuming anything.  I'm willing to use MySQL, if we do it
> correctly, and there are reasons for it.
> 
> To do it "correctly", I don't want to run two databases.  

That's the problem there, it's an unnecessary fear.  Do you remove gedit
if you use vi?  Why then must you remove postgres to run some MySQL
sometimes?

> That's a
> cobble job which leads to nothing but problems, like duplication of data
> and a programming nightmare (which DB is this data in ...).  So if we do
> it, let's convert everything to MySQL and get rid of PG.
> 
> I wouldn't mind converting everything to MySQL, _IF_ you could give me a
> good reason to do it.  So far your reasons have been very weak.

Perjorative.  Quick now, why do you love your wife?  Why do you prefer
democracy?  Why do you like sunshine?  The problem in answering
questions like these is there are so -many- reasons its hard to start or
be systematic.  MySQL is overwhelmingly more popular.  There is a reason
why.  I'd argue it is because the overwhelming number of applications
fit its strength.  Like your Ford Escort illustration.

> As far as I can tell from you, the only difference in PHP is the command
> name,  i.e.  pg_select  vs.  mysql_select.  I ask again, what's the
> advantage of MySQL over PG when programming in PHP?  Give me specifics,
> and quit with the "try it" logic.

"Try it" logic is legit, you just don't like it.  It's the preeminent
way to let you be the judge.  In the final analysis a human (not a
statistic) is the measure of good programming.

> And your argument has no foundation.  I KNOW that Adam can do it, I've
> seen PG/PHP code he's written.  Reread my previous email about the lack
> of time people have to donate to a volunteer organization.

You know Adam could do it, you don't KNOW why he did not.  I know Adam
can do it.  I was reluctant to put him in a bad light.  But it makes the
point: if you had MySQL, it would already be done. Because you don't it
is not.  

> I talked to other KLUG officers after the meeting last night, and they
> believe the web site needs to be stable.  It is currently stable, and
> they are hesitant to change because that would very likely cause some
> instability during the conversion.  (if it ain't broke, don't fix it) 
> So, unless there isn't a good reason to switch to MySQL ... 

Unstable?  To implement MySQL?  C'mon.  They turned it down because you
framed the question as an either/or which I never proposed.  I never
suggested you should "switch to MySQL."  I said you should run it to do
some things, offered to help with some KLUG stuff if you did and even do
a presentation on a current need.  If you only make decisions with
specific arguments, how do you -know- it "would very likely cause some
instability."

> FYI, your reasons don't have to be technical in nature.  Bribery works
> too.  :-)   i.e.  You could offer to become our new webmaster, redesign
> our entire web site, make all kinds of improvements, do the conversion,
> ....  if we switch to MySQL.   (as an example :)

I already tried bribery, and you've turned it down.  Now you're trying
blackmail.

You're rejecting the most popular open database on the web today without
trying it.  Hey, it's your website, you can do what you want.  But an
implementation of MySQL could open the door to many things the open
community on the web is utilizing.   Think of all the MySQL code
repositories you can't use.

Besides, if you had both running you could answer these question more
definitively.  

Somehow, if Adam actually read this far, I see him with a smile on his
face, imagining himself the victor looking down over his vanquished
opponents after another decisive battle of the RDMS.  But now he can
only dream.

kind regards,

bill