<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_01_1320228</id>
	<title>SQL in a Nutshell</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1243882980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:bittercode@gmail" rel="nofollow">stoolpigeon</a> writes <i>"The cover of <em>SQL in a Nutshell</em> sports a chameleon, the little lizard well known for its ability to blend in just about anywhere.  This is a great choice for the Structured Query Language.  SQL has been around since the seventies, helping developers interact with the ubiquitous relational database management system.  Thirty some years later, SQL grinds away in the background of just about any interactive web site and nameless other technologies.  New alternatives are popping up constantly but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that SQL is going to be around for a long time.  Anyone interacting with an RDBMS is in all likelihood going to need to use SQL at some point.  For those who do, who also want a handy desktop reference, <em>SQL in a Nutshell</em> has been there for the last 9 years.  The SQL language itself has not stood still over those years, and neither have the products that use SQL, and so now the book is available in a third edition."</i> Read on for the rest of JR's review.</htmltext>
<tokenext>stoolpigeon writes " The cover of SQL in a Nutshell sports a chameleon , the little lizard well known for its ability to blend in just about anywhere .
This is a great choice for the Structured Query Language .
SQL has been around since the seventies , helping developers interact with the ubiquitous relational database management system .
Thirty some years later , SQL grinds away in the background of just about any interactive web site and nameless other technologies .
New alternatives are popping up constantly but I 'm going to go out on a limb and say that SQL is going to be around for a long time .
Anyone interacting with an RDBMS is in all likelihood going to need to use SQL at some point .
For those who do , who also want a handy desktop reference , SQL in a Nutshell has been there for the last 9 years .
The SQL language itself has not stood still over those years , and neither have the products that use SQL , and so now the book is available in a third edition .
" Read on for the rest of JR 's review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stoolpigeon writes "The cover of SQL in a Nutshell sports a chameleon, the little lizard well known for its ability to blend in just about anywhere.
This is a great choice for the Structured Query Language.
SQL has been around since the seventies, helping developers interact with the ubiquitous relational database management system.
Thirty some years later, SQL grinds away in the background of just about any interactive web site and nameless other technologies.
New alternatives are popping up constantly but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that SQL is going to be around for a long time.
Anyone interacting with an RDBMS is in all likelihood going to need to use SQL at some point.
For those who do, who also want a handy desktop reference, SQL in a Nutshell has been there for the last 9 years.
The SQL language itself has not stood still over those years, and neither have the products that use SQL, and so now the book is available in a third edition.
" Read on for the rest of JR's review.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174749</id>
	<title>Re:Limit of my SQL....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243854960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Syntax error!<br>'posts' is a string which cannot be used in place of a relation, you probably meant "posts".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Syntax error !
'posts ' is a string which can not be used in place of a relation , you probably meant " posts " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Syntax error!
'posts' is a string which cannot be used in place of a relation, you probably meant "posts".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172359</id>
	<title>I'm gonna have to give a negative review here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243889160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The cover of SQL in a Nutshell sports a chameleon, the little lizard well known for its ability to blend in just about anywhere.</i></p><p>A chameleon? A chameleon can't save you money on car insurance!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cover of SQL in a Nutshell sports a chameleon , the little lizard well known for its ability to blend in just about anywhere.A chameleon ?
A chameleon ca n't save you money on car insurance !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cover of SQL in a Nutshell sports a chameleon, the little lizard well known for its ability to blend in just about anywhere.A chameleon?
A chameleon can't save you money on car insurance!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28175021</id>
	<title>YOU FAIL IqT...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243856280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">arseholes at Walnut correct network are just way over going to continue, Java IRC client at least.' Nobody at least.' Nobody future at all About who can rant just yet, but I'm</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>arseholes at Walnut correct network are just way over going to continue , Java IRC client at least .
' Nobody at least .
' Nobody future at all About who can rant just yet , but I 'm [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>arseholes at Walnut correct network are just way over going to continue, Java IRC client at least.
' Nobody at least.
' Nobody future at all About who can rant just yet, but I'm [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172501</id>
	<title>Re:Why only one database language?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243889760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because SQL is Good Enough(TM)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because SQL is Good Enough ( TM )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because SQL is Good Enough(TM)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171655</id>
	<title>The utility of Nutshell books?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243886760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I got quite some milage out of my copy of <i> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596100469?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=3636363-20&amp;linkCode=xm2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creativeASIN=0596100469" title="amazon.com">Python in a Nutshell</a> [amazon.com] </i> back in the day, online documentation has much improved and I feel just as comfortable hitting a few keys to get the reference material I want as flipping through pages. O'Reilly Nutshell guides seem to me consigned to that most infamous category of tech reading printed material: the bathroom book.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I got quite some milage out of my copy of Python in a Nutshell [ amazon.com ] back in the day , online documentation has much improved and I feel just as comfortable hitting a few keys to get the reference material I want as flipping through pages .
O'Reilly Nutshell guides seem to me consigned to that most infamous category of tech reading printed material : the bathroom book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I got quite some milage out of my copy of  Python in a Nutshell [amazon.com]  back in the day, online documentation has much improved and I feel just as comfortable hitting a few keys to get the reference material I want as flipping through pages.
O'Reilly Nutshell guides seem to me consigned to that most infamous category of tech reading printed material: the bathroom book.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28173321</id>
	<title>SQL is just a TLA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually according to both the ANSI and ISO stds, SQL has no translation from the acronym.  Now before flames start, please read the standards.  A friend of mine has been an active member of the ANSI committee since the early '90's, and I have presented proposals to the committee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually according to both the ANSI and ISO stds , SQL has no translation from the acronym .
Now before flames start , please read the standards .
A friend of mine has been an active member of the ANSI committee since the early '90 's , and I have presented proposals to the committee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually according to both the ANSI and ISO stds, SQL has no translation from the acronym.
Now before flames start, please read the standards.
A friend of mine has been an active member of the ANSI committee since the early '90's, and I have presented proposals to the committee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171669</id>
	<title>I'm looking forward to ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243886820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the SQL to this book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the SQL to this book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the SQL to this book.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28175833</id>
	<title>Fp Hompo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243861200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">found out about t\_he</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>found out about t \ _he [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>found out about t\_he [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172867</id>
	<title>Re:Why only one database language?</title>
	<author>abigor</author>
	<datestamp>1243847880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's mainly because SQL was the first (only? someone correct me) language to implement Codd's relational model, via the tuple calculus. The relational model is of course the basis for relational databases, so the idea was SQL would be provably correct in its representation of the relational model. There is a document called The Third Manifesto that details why this is not the case, and makes some suggestions for the way forward, but I don't remember much else about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's mainly because SQL was the first ( only ?
someone correct me ) language to implement Codd 's relational model , via the tuple calculus .
The relational model is of course the basis for relational databases , so the idea was SQL would be provably correct in its representation of the relational model .
There is a document called The Third Manifesto that details why this is not the case , and makes some suggestions for the way forward , but I do n't remember much else about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's mainly because SQL was the first (only?
someone correct me) language to implement Codd's relational model, via the tuple calculus.
The relational model is of course the basis for relational databases, so the idea was SQL would be provably correct in its representation of the relational model.
There is a document called The Third Manifesto that details why this is not the case, and makes some suggestions for the way forward, but I don't remember much else about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28181893</id>
	<title>Re:If only...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243956360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I like O'Reilly because he's not afraid to converse like a regular human being in his books.</p> </div><p>And I like Ronald McDonald because he makes my hamburgers just how I like them. [/snark]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like O'Reilly because he 's not afraid to converse like a regular human being in his books .
And I like Ronald McDonald because he makes my hamburgers just how I like them .
[ /snark ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like O'Reilly because he's not afraid to converse like a regular human being in his books.
And I like Ronald McDonald because he makes my hamburgers just how I like them.
[/snark]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28187919</id>
	<title>Re:Limit of my SQL....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243937400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/. is vulnerable to sql injection.  tell a friend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/ .
is vulnerable to sql injection .
tell a friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/.
is vulnerable to sql injection.
tell a friend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28173473</id>
	<title>Re:Why only one database language?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SQL is the de facto verification suite for an RDBMS engine.  Of the various engines I've used in the last 20 years, most had their own proprietary query languages.  But if you have to support SQL for procurement compliance (ie the Feds) why bother with two languages?  Altho it really comes down to a parser and precompiler feeding a BLR generator.  How the BLR gets handled is the fun part.</p><p>And it has matured tremendously since the standard was V1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SQL is the de facto verification suite for an RDBMS engine .
Of the various engines I 've used in the last 20 years , most had their own proprietary query languages .
But if you have to support SQL for procurement compliance ( ie the Feds ) why bother with two languages ?
Altho it really comes down to a parser and precompiler feeding a BLR generator .
How the BLR gets handled is the fun part.And it has matured tremendously since the standard was V1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SQL is the de facto verification suite for an RDBMS engine.
Of the various engines I've used in the last 20 years, most had their own proprietary query languages.
But if you have to support SQL for procurement compliance (ie the Feds) why bother with two languages?
Altho it really comes down to a parser and precompiler feeding a BLR generator.
How the BLR gets handled is the fun part.And it has matured tremendously since the standard was V1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28175649</id>
	<title>Re:Why only one database language?</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1243859940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But only one SQL.</p></div></blockquote><p>I know for a fact that isn't true.  I work with SAP, which uses a slightly odd dialect/subset of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But only one SQL.I know for a fact that is n't true .
I work with SAP , which uses a slightly odd dialect/subset of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But only one SQL.I know for a fact that isn't true.
I work with SAP, which uses a slightly odd dialect/subset of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174299</id>
	<title>Really, here is SQL in a nutshell...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243853040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt>SELECT * FROM table WHERE field LIKE condition;</tt></p></div> </blockquote><blockquote><div><p> <tt>INSERT INTO table (field1, field2, field3) VALUES(value1, value2, value3);</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>That's SQL in a nutshell.  I think anything more than that is a fairly detailed book.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>SELECT * FROM table WHERE field LIKE condition ; INSERT INTO table ( field1 , field2 , field3 ) VALUES ( value1 , value2 , value3 ) ; That 's SQL in a nutshell .
I think anything more than that is a fairly detailed book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> SELECT * FROM table WHERE field LIKE condition;  INSERT INTO table (field1, field2, field3) VALUES(value1, value2, value3); That's SQL in a nutshell.
I think anything more than that is a fairly detailed book.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28173267</id>
	<title>SQL injection</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does the book cover SQL injection - how to and prevention/detection?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the book cover SQL injection - how to and prevention/detection ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the book cover SQL injection - how to and prevention/detection?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171643</id>
	<title>Limit of my SQL....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243886760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SQL&gt; select COUNT(*) from 'posts';<br>1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SQL &gt; select COUNT ( * ) from 'posts ' ; 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SQL&gt; select COUNT(*) from 'posts';1</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172231</id>
	<title>Books Are Just Office Trophies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243888680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always thought the books I see in people's offices are just trophies they're showing off stating "I know this language" or "I know that topic". I've actually never seen a co-worker use one of the books either. I agree with some of the other posters, that it's just easier to search Google for something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always thought the books I see in people 's offices are just trophies they 're showing off stating " I know this language " or " I know that topic " .
I 've actually never seen a co-worker use one of the books either .
I agree with some of the other posters , that it 's just easier to search Google for something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always thought the books I see in people's offices are just trophies they're showing off stating "I know this language" or "I know that topic".
I've actually never seen a co-worker use one of the books either.
I agree with some of the other posters, that it's just easier to search Google for something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28175733</id>
	<title>BiznaPtcH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243860660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">parties). At THE playing so 1t's There's no suffering *BSD</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>parties ) .
At THE playing so 1t 's There 's no suffering * BSD [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>parties).
At THE playing so 1t's There's no suffering *BSD [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174967</id>
	<title>Re:Why only one database language?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243856040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot Erlang.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot Erlang .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot Erlang.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172043</id>
	<title>And we need another SQL book... why?</title>
	<author>Uniquitous</author>
	<datestamp>1243888020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As has been noted, it's been around for quite some time now. There was enough uncovered material remaining to justify another book?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As has been noted , it 's been around for quite some time now .
There was enough uncovered material remaining to justify another book ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As has been noted, it's been around for quite some time now.
There was enough uncovered material remaining to justify another book?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171675</id>
	<title>That's not SQL in a nutshell...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243886820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not SQL in a nutshell... This is SQL in a nutshell:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>SQL: HELP! I'M TRAPPED IN A NUTSHELL<br>SQL: WHAT KIND OF SHELL HAS A NUT LIKE THIS?!?</p></div><p>(my 100 billion apologies, Mr. powers.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not SQL in a nutshell... This is SQL in a nutshell : SQL : HELP !
I 'M TRAPPED IN A NUTSHELLSQL : WHAT KIND OF SHELL HAS A NUT LIKE THIS ? ! ?
( my 100 billion apologies , Mr .
powers. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not SQL in a nutshell... This is SQL in a nutshell:SQL: HELP!
I'M TRAPPED IN A NUTSHELLSQL: WHAT KIND OF SHELL HAS A NUT LIKE THIS?!?
(my 100 billion apologies, Mr.
powers.)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28173105</id>
	<title>O'Reilly is the Microsoft of book publishers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243848780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>O'Reilly is the Microsoft of book publishers: Do just well enough to make money, and don't care about quality at all beyond that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>O'Reilly is the Microsoft of book publishers : Do just well enough to make money , and do n't care about quality at all beyond that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>O'Reilly is the Microsoft of book publishers: Do just well enough to make money, and don't care about quality at all beyond that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171629</id>
	<title>SQL is going to be around for a long time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243886760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nostra Fucking Damus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nostra Fucking Damus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nostra Fucking Damus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28189715</id>
	<title>Re:Really, here is SQL in a nutshell...</title>
	<author>Samah</author>
	<datestamp>1243946340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're not going to accomplish much with a select and insert.  As long as you know all the CRUD syntaxes (Create, Read, Update, Delete) you can use an existing database, and although I'd hardly call it "in a nutshell", it's the first thing anyone dabbling with SQL should know before they start reading a few chapters into "a detailed book" and get to creating and modifying schemas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not going to accomplish much with a select and insert .
As long as you know all the CRUD syntaxes ( Create , Read , Update , Delete ) you can use an existing database , and although I 'd hardly call it " in a nutshell " , it 's the first thing anyone dabbling with SQL should know before they start reading a few chapters into " a detailed book " and get to creating and modifying schemas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not going to accomplish much with a select and insert.
As long as you know all the CRUD syntaxes (Create, Read, Update, Delete) you can use an existing database, and although I'd hardly call it "in a nutshell", it's the first thing anyone dabbling with SQL should know before they start reading a few chapters into "a detailed book" and get to creating and modifying schemas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375</id>
	<title>Why only one database language?</title>
	<author>Brandybuck</author>
	<datestamp>1243889280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a gazillion programming languages, with new ones added every day. C, C++, Java, C#, Objective C, Pascal, Modula 3, Ada, Ocaml, Haskell, Lisp, Scheme, Python, Ruby, Perl, Lua, Javascript, etc. There's even a choice of shell scripts: sh, csh, bash, ksh, zsh, etc.</p><p>But only one SQL. I'm sure there are some other database query languages, but they are so obscure that no one but the longbeards have ever heard of them. Why is that? Why are there no alternatives to SQL? Not just minor variants, but actual alternatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a gazillion programming languages , with new ones added every day .
C , C + + , Java , C # , Objective C , Pascal , Modula 3 , Ada , Ocaml , Haskell , Lisp , Scheme , Python , Ruby , Perl , Lua , Javascript , etc .
There 's even a choice of shell scripts : sh , csh , bash , ksh , zsh , etc.But only one SQL .
I 'm sure there are some other database query languages , but they are so obscure that no one but the longbeards have ever heard of them .
Why is that ?
Why are there no alternatives to SQL ?
Not just minor variants , but actual alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a gazillion programming languages, with new ones added every day.
C, C++, Java, C#, Objective C, Pascal, Modula 3, Ada, Ocaml, Haskell, Lisp, Scheme, Python, Ruby, Perl, Lua, Javascript, etc.
There's even a choice of shell scripts: sh, csh, bash, ksh, zsh, etc.But only one SQL.
I'm sure there are some other database query languages, but they are so obscure that no one but the longbeards have ever heard of them.
Why is that?
Why are there no alternatives to SQL?
Not just minor variants, but actual alternatives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174659</id>
	<title>Re:SQL injection</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1243854600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't tell you how to touch-type or tie your shoes either.</p><p>Use parameterized queries and you don't ever have to worry about SQL injection again.</p><p>If your development environment doesn't support them, it's a BUG, and you NEED to report it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't tell you how to touch-type or tie your shoes either.Use parameterized queries and you do n't ever have to worry about SQL injection again.If your development environment does n't support them , it 's a BUG , and you NEED to report it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't tell you how to touch-type or tie your shoes either.Use parameterized queries and you don't ever have to worry about SQL injection again.If your development environment doesn't support them, it's a BUG, and you NEED to report it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28173267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174939</id>
	<title>No DB2?</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1243855860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The book states that the dropped platforms were the least popular of those in earlier editions.</p></div></blockquote><p>Last I checked, IBM DB2 had the biggest market share of any SQL database. (Link to <a href="http://www.programminglearn.com/209/ibm-db2-udb-v82-oracle10g-microsoft-sql-server-2000-a-technical-comparison" title="programminglearn.com">2003 Gartner Study</a> [programminglearn.com], and I don't think the situation has changed much.)</p><p>So do DB2 users just not buy books like SQL In A Nutshell? Or have O'Reilly made a serious mistake here?</p><p>From my point of view it looks like a mistake, as I'm only interested in PostgreSQL and DB2... but then again, I work for IBM, so maybe I'm a special case?</p><p>[Opinions mine, not IBM's.]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The book states that the dropped platforms were the least popular of those in earlier editions.Last I checked , IBM DB2 had the biggest market share of any SQL database .
( Link to 2003 Gartner Study [ programminglearn.com ] , and I do n't think the situation has changed much .
) So do DB2 users just not buy books like SQL In A Nutshell ?
Or have O'Reilly made a serious mistake here ? From my point of view it looks like a mistake , as I 'm only interested in PostgreSQL and DB2... but then again , I work for IBM , so maybe I 'm a special case ?
[ Opinions mine , not IBM 's .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The book states that the dropped platforms were the least popular of those in earlier editions.Last I checked, IBM DB2 had the biggest market share of any SQL database.
(Link to 2003 Gartner Study [programminglearn.com], and I don't think the situation has changed much.
)So do DB2 users just not buy books like SQL In A Nutshell?
Or have O'Reilly made a serious mistake here?From my point of view it looks like a mistake, as I'm only interested in PostgreSQL and DB2... but then again, I work for IBM, so maybe I'm a special case?
[Opinions mine, not IBM's.
]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28177789</id>
	<title>Re:Books Are Just Office Trophies</title>
	<author>Insaniac99</author>
	<datestamp>1243878240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've always thought the books I see in people's offices are just trophies they're showing off stating "I know this language" or "I know that topic". I've actually never seen a co-worker use one of the books either. I agree with some of the other posters, that it's just easier to search Google for something.</p></div><p>I keep books around because sometimes you don't have access to an internet connection and you want to keep working without worrying about being able to look stuff up when you want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always thought the books I see in people 's offices are just trophies they 're showing off stating " I know this language " or " I know that topic " .
I 've actually never seen a co-worker use one of the books either .
I agree with some of the other posters , that it 's just easier to search Google for something.I keep books around because sometimes you do n't have access to an internet connection and you want to keep working without worrying about being able to look stuff up when you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always thought the books I see in people's offices are just trophies they're showing off stating "I know this language" or "I know that topic".
I've actually never seen a co-worker use one of the books either.
I agree with some of the other posters, that it's just easier to search Google for something.I keep books around because sometimes you don't have access to an internet connection and you want to keep working without worrying about being able to look stuff up when you want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28177903</id>
	<title>Re:The utility of Nutshell books?</title>
	<author>greg1104</author>
	<datestamp>1243879560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typically the on-line reference manuals you'll find show how SQL works on one particular platform.  The main value of the "SQL In a Nutshell" books has always been the way you can easily compare what's available on multiple database platforms.  You will need to be aware of that sort of thing if you want to support more than one database in your code.  And even if you're using some middleware to abstract that away, knowing which features work well and badly on various platforms can guide how you should implement things.  A good example here is the messy state of building paginated queries with LIMIT/OFFSET/ROWNUM.</p><p>As there is far less variation between, say, Python on various platforms than SQL, this title is somewhat special in that way; I agree that some of the other nutshell books are less relevant nowadays than they used to be.  Even when they are the best choice, the printed version isn't necessarily what you want either.  Most of my nutshell reading has been through their Safari service lately, rather than the printed books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typically the on-line reference manuals you 'll find show how SQL works on one particular platform .
The main value of the " SQL In a Nutshell " books has always been the way you can easily compare what 's available on multiple database platforms .
You will need to be aware of that sort of thing if you want to support more than one database in your code .
And even if you 're using some middleware to abstract that away , knowing which features work well and badly on various platforms can guide how you should implement things .
A good example here is the messy state of building paginated queries with LIMIT/OFFSET/ROWNUM.As there is far less variation between , say , Python on various platforms than SQL , this title is somewhat special in that way ; I agree that some of the other nutshell books are less relevant nowadays than they used to be .
Even when they are the best choice , the printed version is n't necessarily what you want either .
Most of my nutshell reading has been through their Safari service lately , rather than the printed books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typically the on-line reference manuals you'll find show how SQL works on one particular platform.
The main value of the "SQL In a Nutshell" books has always been the way you can easily compare what's available on multiple database platforms.
You will need to be aware of that sort of thing if you want to support more than one database in your code.
And even if you're using some middleware to abstract that away, knowing which features work well and badly on various platforms can guide how you should implement things.
A good example here is the messy state of building paginated queries with LIMIT/OFFSET/ROWNUM.As there is far less variation between, say, Python on various platforms than SQL, this title is somewhat special in that way; I agree that some of the other nutshell books are less relevant nowadays than they used to be.
Even when they are the best choice, the printed version isn't necessarily what you want either.
Most of my nutshell reading has been through their Safari service lately, rather than the printed books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174887</id>
	<title>Re:Limit of my SQL....</title>
	<author>ta bu shi da yu</author>
	<datestamp>1243855560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your SQL skillz are indeed quite limited. That's not correct syntax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your SQL skillz are indeed quite limited .
That 's not correct syntax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your SQL skillz are indeed quite limited.
That's not correct syntax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171819</id>
	<title>mod d0wn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243887240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">The point more cyc7e; take a and building is here, but what is Satan's Dick And I type this.</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point more cyc7e ; take a and building is here , but what is Satan 's Dick And I type this .
[ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point more cyc7e; take a and building is here, but what is Satan's Dick And I type this.
[goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28181077</id>
	<title>Re:No DB2?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243952880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True or not, I'd been told that IBM's market share was skewed by the fact that it's included by default in all their mid-range (non-UNIX) and mainframe systems and that IBM counts each user of those systems as a user of DB2 whether it's used by their app or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True or not , I 'd been told that IBM 's market share was skewed by the fact that it 's included by default in all their mid-range ( non-UNIX ) and mainframe systems and that IBM counts each user of those systems as a user of DB2 whether it 's used by their app or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True or not, I'd been told that IBM's market share was skewed by the fact that it's included by default in all their mid-range (non-UNIX) and mainframe systems and that IBM counts each user of those systems as a user of DB2 whether it's used by their app or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174575</id>
	<title>SQL is not a standard</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1243854240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it were, there would not need to be vendor-specific examples in every SQL book.</p><p>Why can't people just implement standard ANSI SQL and be done with it?</p><p>I am really tired of vendors (MySQL) and their non-standard SQL.  I want my JDBC applications to just work and not have special-case code for each database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it were , there would not need to be vendor-specific examples in every SQL book.Why ca n't people just implement standard ANSI SQL and be done with it ? I am really tired of vendors ( MySQL ) and their non-standard SQL .
I want my JDBC applications to just work and not have special-case code for each database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it were, there would not need to be vendor-specific examples in every SQL book.Why can't people just implement standard ANSI SQL and be done with it?I am really tired of vendors (MySQL) and their non-standard SQL.
I want my JDBC applications to just work and not have special-case code for each database.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171767</id>
	<title>For more indepth reading...</title>
	<author>tcopeland</author>
	<datestamp>1243887120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...try Stephane Faroult's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596008945?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=militproferea-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0596008945" title="amazon.com">The Art of SQL</a> [amazon.com].  I've read both that and his "Refactoring SQL Applications"; I think I got a little more out of the former.</p><p>But anyhow, in both books he has a distinct and lively writing style and includes lots of anecdotes.  His style kind of reminds me of Betrand Meyer... for those who have read Meyer's 1000 page tome "Object Oriented Software Construction".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...try Stephane Faroult 's The Art of SQL [ amazon.com ] .
I 've read both that and his " Refactoring SQL Applications " ; I think I got a little more out of the former.But anyhow , in both books he has a distinct and lively writing style and includes lots of anecdotes .
His style kind of reminds me of Betrand Meyer... for those who have read Meyer 's 1000 page tome " Object Oriented Software Construction " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...try Stephane Faroult's The Art of SQL [amazon.com].
I've read both that and his "Refactoring SQL Applications"; I think I got a little more out of the former.But anyhow, in both books he has a distinct and lively writing style and includes lots of anecdotes.
His style kind of reminds me of Betrand Meyer... for those who have read Meyer's 1000 page tome "Object Oriented Software Construction".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28179457</id>
	<title>Re:Why only one database language?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243940280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LINQ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LINQ ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LINQ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172529</id>
	<title>Re:Why only one database language?</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1243889820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>both XQuery and XPath 2.0 are used in the "real world".  Unidata Query Language is used in many enterprises, I worked at a manufacturing plant where the MRP system used Unidata as back end.</p><p>so quit yer bellyachin'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>both XQuery and XPath 2.0 are used in the " real world " .
Unidata Query Language is used in many enterprises , I worked at a manufacturing plant where the MRP system used Unidata as back end.so quit yer bellyachin'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>both XQuery and XPath 2.0 are used in the "real world".
Unidata Query Language is used in many enterprises, I worked at a manufacturing plant where the MRP system used Unidata as back end.so quit yer bellyachin'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171879</id>
	<title>Nutshell books</title>
	<author>gambit3</author>
	<datestamp>1243887420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>while the "Nutshell" books make great gifts for someone somewhat experienced in a topic, it needs to be pointed out  that they're not necessarily the best option for a beginner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>while the " Nutshell " books make great gifts for someone somewhat experienced in a topic , it needs to be pointed out that they 're not necessarily the best option for a beginner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while the "Nutshell" books make great gifts for someone somewhat experienced in a topic, it needs to be pointed out  that they're not necessarily the best option for a beginner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28177925</id>
	<title>Re:That's not SQL in a nutshell...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243879680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I only clicked on this ato see how long till someone made that joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I only clicked on this ato see how long till someone made that joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I only clicked on this ato see how long till someone made that joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28175367</id>
	<title>Re:Why only one database language?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1243858200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There are a gazillion programming languages...Why are there no [common] alternatives to SQL?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Indeed! Over at the c2.com wiki we've been wondering that also. We've listed several limitations or annoyances of SQL that are not inherent to relational theory itself.</p><p>I've even created my own draft relational query language called SMEQL ("smeegol") roughly based on an old IBM experimental language called "Business System 12" that has a functional programming feel and is more re-composable than SQL.</p><p>Another option is variations on Chris Date's "Tutorial-D" with some actual implementations floating around, but haven't taken off. While better than SQL, it's driven more by idealism/purism than practical thinking in my opinion. Plus, it mixes in-fix and pre-fix syntax unnecessarily and is a bit keyword-happy, risking falling into the same trap as SQL did.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a gazillion programming languages...Why are there no [ common ] alternatives to SQL ?
Indeed ! Over at the c2.com wiki we 've been wondering that also .
We 've listed several limitations or annoyances of SQL that are not inherent to relational theory itself.I 've even created my own draft relational query language called SMEQL ( " smeegol " ) roughly based on an old IBM experimental language called " Business System 12 " that has a functional programming feel and is more re-composable than SQL.Another option is variations on Chris Date 's " Tutorial-D " with some actual implementations floating around , but have n't taken off .
While better than SQL , it 's driven more by idealism/purism than practical thinking in my opinion .
Plus , it mixes in-fix and pre-fix syntax unnecessarily and is a bit keyword-happy , risking falling into the same trap as SQL did .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a gazillion programming languages...Why are there no [common] alternatives to SQL?
Indeed! Over at the c2.com wiki we've been wondering that also.
We've listed several limitations or annoyances of SQL that are not inherent to relational theory itself.I've even created my own draft relational query language called SMEQL ("smeegol") roughly based on an old IBM experimental language called "Business System 12" that has a functional programming feel and is more re-composable than SQL.Another option is variations on Chris Date's "Tutorial-D" with some actual implementations floating around, but haven't taken off.
While better than SQL, it's driven more by idealism/purism than practical thinking in my opinion.
Plus, it mixes in-fix and pre-fix syntax unnecessarily and is a bit keyword-happy, risking falling into the same trap as SQL did.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174185</id>
	<title>Re:Why only one database language?</title>
	<author>TCM</author>
	<datestamp>1243852620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's even a choice of shell scripts: sh, csh, bash, ksh, zsh, etc.</p></div><p> Objection!</p><p>You use different shells for different interactive properties. Scripts should be written for #!/bin/sh. And yes, that's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/bin/sh to you, no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/bin/sh ==<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/bin/bash perversion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's even a choice of shell scripts : sh , csh , bash , ksh , zsh , etc .
Objection ! You use different shells for different interactive properties .
Scripts should be written for # ! /bin/sh .
And yes , that 's /bin/sh to you , no /bin/sh = = /bin/bash perversion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's even a choice of shell scripts: sh, csh, bash, ksh, zsh, etc.
Objection!You use different shells for different interactive properties.
Scripts should be written for #!/bin/sh.
And yes, that's /bin/sh to you, no /bin/sh == /bin/bash perversion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28180911</id>
	<title>Re:Books Are Just Office Trophies</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1243951920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've actually never seen a co-worker use one of the books either.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I find a book can be helpful when I'm getting a general overview of a complex topic. You can lay in bed (or on the floor) and read, which is harder to do with google. I found it difficult to grok how to design database tables for example, without sitting down, reading and thinking. And falling asleep, and getting up and doing it all over. It's a lot harder to learn databases than say, learn enough Perl to do something useful. Hence why the only computer books I have ever bought (outside of class) have been database books. And they are not sitting prominently on some bookshelf, they are scattered around the house or workplace somewhere.
</p><p>
Of course, once you are familiar with the layout of the book it is indeed quicker to go to where you know the answer is than use google, which is why the book still has use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've actually never seen a co-worker use one of the books either .
I find a book can be helpful when I 'm getting a general overview of a complex topic .
You can lay in bed ( or on the floor ) and read , which is harder to do with google .
I found it difficult to grok how to design database tables for example , without sitting down , reading and thinking .
And falling asleep , and getting up and doing it all over .
It 's a lot harder to learn databases than say , learn enough Perl to do something useful .
Hence why the only computer books I have ever bought ( outside of class ) have been database books .
And they are not sitting prominently on some bookshelf , they are scattered around the house or workplace somewhere .
Of course , once you are familiar with the layout of the book it is indeed quicker to go to where you know the answer is than use google , which is why the book still has use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've actually never seen a co-worker use one of the books either.
I find a book can be helpful when I'm getting a general overview of a complex topic.
You can lay in bed (or on the floor) and read, which is harder to do with google.
I found it difficult to grok how to design database tables for example, without sitting down, reading and thinking.
And falling asleep, and getting up and doing it all over.
It's a lot harder to learn databases than say, learn enough Perl to do something useful.
Hence why the only computer books I have ever bought (outside of class) have been database books.
And they are not sitting prominently on some bookshelf, they are scattered around the house or workplace somewhere.
Of course, once you are familiar with the layout of the book it is indeed quicker to go to where you know the answer is than use google, which is why the book still has use.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174315</id>
	<title>Re:Why only one database language?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1243853100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it works, well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it works , well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it works, well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171771</id>
	<title>SQL in a Nutsell</title>
	<author>LordKaT</author>
	<datestamp>1243887120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you had any practice with natural language database queries? No? You're a C programmer by trade? Well, then, fuck you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you had any practice with natural language database queries ?
No ? You 're a C programmer by trade ?
Well , then , fuck you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you had any practice with natural language database queries?
No? You're a C programmer by trade?
Well, then, fuck you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28173709</id>
	<title>Re:Books Are Just Office Trophies</title>
	<author>Rary</author>
	<datestamp>1243850940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a large library of technical books, but I also use Google as my primary reference source. The reasons I continue to buy books are:</p><ol> <li>I read them on the bus to and from work.</li><li>Occasionally I can find something quicker in a book that I'm familiar with which is focused on a single topic, whereas Google is generic and often full of useless crap.</li><li>I get my books paid for by the company I work for, and they make nice trophies.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a large library of technical books , but I also use Google as my primary reference source .
The reasons I continue to buy books are : I read them on the bus to and from work.Occasionally I can find something quicker in a book that I 'm familiar with which is focused on a single topic , whereas Google is generic and often full of useless crap.I get my books paid for by the company I work for , and they make nice trophies .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a large library of technical books, but I also use Google as my primary reference source.
The reasons I continue to buy books are: I read them on the bus to and from work.Occasionally I can find something quicker in a book that I'm familiar with which is focused on a single topic, whereas Google is generic and often full of useless crap.I get my books paid for by the company I work for, and they make nice trophies.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171765</id>
	<title>If only...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1243887120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oracle Documention wasn't as dry as a desert. I like O'Reilly because he's not afraid to converse like a regular human being in his books. I feel like I'm being taught something rather then being shown how to do it. Would I go out and by this book? If I used SQL - definately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle Documention was n't as dry as a desert .
I like O'Reilly because he 's not afraid to converse like a regular human being in his books .
I feel like I 'm being taught something rather then being shown how to do it .
Would I go out and by this book ?
If I used SQL - definately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle Documention wasn't as dry as a desert.
I like O'Reilly because he's not afraid to converse like a regular human being in his books.
I feel like I'm being taught something rather then being shown how to do it.
Would I go out and by this book?
If I used SQL - definately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172977</id>
	<title>COBOL</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1243848240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>New alternatives are popping up constantly but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that SQL is going to be around for a long time.</p></div><p>That's pretty much guaranteed. COBOL is still around.</p><p>There absolutely are better alternatives, for almost every situation. No one in their right mind starts a <a href="http://coboloncogs.org/" title="coboloncogs.org">new system in COBOL</a> [coboloncogs.org], when they have a choice.</p><p>Yet COBOL is still around, and will be still around for awhile. So will SQL.</p><p>The only question is whether SQL will be like COBOL or like C. I could make a similar case for C being obsolete, and there are certainly many cases where a performance penalty is well worth it to get some other desired feature -- for instance, there are things I can imagine doing in Erlang that I'd never attempt in C. But people do anyway, and even modern high level languages seem to start as interpreters written in C.</p><p>Personally, I'd rather see <a href="http://couchdb.apache.org/" title="apache.org">CouchDB</a> [apache.org] mature, and see SQL become more like COBOL, but that doesn't seem likely to happen soon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>New alternatives are popping up constantly but I 'm going to go out on a limb and say that SQL is going to be around for a long time.That 's pretty much guaranteed .
COBOL is still around.There absolutely are better alternatives , for almost every situation .
No one in their right mind starts a new system in COBOL [ coboloncogs.org ] , when they have a choice.Yet COBOL is still around , and will be still around for awhile .
So will SQL.The only question is whether SQL will be like COBOL or like C. I could make a similar case for C being obsolete , and there are certainly many cases where a performance penalty is well worth it to get some other desired feature -- for instance , there are things I can imagine doing in Erlang that I 'd never attempt in C. But people do anyway , and even modern high level languages seem to start as interpreters written in C.Personally , I 'd rather see CouchDB [ apache.org ] mature , and see SQL become more like COBOL , but that does n't seem likely to happen soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New alternatives are popping up constantly but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that SQL is going to be around for a long time.That's pretty much guaranteed.
COBOL is still around.There absolutely are better alternatives, for almost every situation.
No one in their right mind starts a new system in COBOL [coboloncogs.org], when they have a choice.Yet COBOL is still around, and will be still around for awhile.
So will SQL.The only question is whether SQL will be like COBOL or like C. I could make a similar case for C being obsolete, and there are certainly many cases where a performance penalty is well worth it to get some other desired feature -- for instance, there are things I can imagine doing in Erlang that I'd never attempt in C. But people do anyway, and even modern high level languages seem to start as interpreters written in C.Personally, I'd rather see CouchDB [apache.org] mature, and see SQL become more like COBOL, but that doesn't seem likely to happen soon.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28181077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28181893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28173267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28173473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28180911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28177925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28173709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28177789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28175367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28173105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28187919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28175649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28189715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28177903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1320228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28179457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1320228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28177925
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1320228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174575
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1320228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1320228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28181893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1320228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28173105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1320228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28187919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1320228.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28173267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174659
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1320228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28175367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28175649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28179457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172529
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28173473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1320228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28172231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28180911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28177789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28173709
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1320228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28189715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1320228.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28171655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28177903
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1320228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28174939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1320228.28181077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
