[DUG] Why Interbase not FB

[Karl at Work]

> No, I'm not planning on doing any promotion of FB - and this is
> particularly important.

I'm sure.

> FB and IB are _not_ the same database any
> longer, they are not only incompatible at the file format layer, they
> have forked in critical functionality as well. How FB limits the rows
> coming back is different to IB for example, and there are many more
> examples, especially at the API layer (admin management, transaction
> management, SQL functionality, etc)
> 
> If you go with FB, you have almost blocked yourself off from 
> IB as much
> as if you had gone with another database.

Oh please.

> I use IB with my web sites,
> the thought of having to move to FB would be more work than I 
> would want
> to have to do.

Borland will love you for this, Richard. ;-)

> Putting a layer between you and the database 
> is something
> I am doing now, but if I have to do stored procs, FB stored 
> procs and IB
> stored procs are becoming sufficiently different to make it an effort.

Come now, have you ever tried Firebird?  Don't be shy.  Give it a test.  At
least read through their lists of bug fixes before you dismiss it entirely.

Feel free to convince me that IB is better than FB in any way you like, but
the argument that they're as different as apples and oranges just doesn't
wash.  I can switch between IB and FB any time I like, with no code changes
at all, and so could nine out of ten IB or FB users.  I use FB right now
because, of the two, both logic and experience have indicated to me that FB
is the better product.  But I'm open to being convinced otherwise.  I don't
think I have any axe to grind.

Cheers,
Carl
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 2676 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://ns3.123.co.nz/pipermail/delphi/attachments/20060601/428d78ee/winmail-0001.bin