Posted by SQL Menace on 07/15/07 14:25

On Jul 15, 10:23 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 6:32 am, SQL Menace <denis.g...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 15, 9:28 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>The future is now Dennis. There's no use fighting the machines; they
>
> > will eventually prevail and put you out of your job.
>
> > I will be dead by then ;-)
>
> > And of course if something better comes along then I will use that
>
> > Denis The SQL Menace
>
> Yes, you make an implicit good point: legacy applications is why SQL
> will live a long time. Like Cobol. Also the hardware is not yet
> cheap enough for what I propose, using pointers and CAM. Hardware is
> the same reason parallel multi-thread programming is not yet popular--
> but with Intel pushing multiple cores, this should change in the
> future.
>
> I myself am learning SQL just for fun--call me crazy.
>
> RL


>>parallel multi-thread programming is not yet popular

It is on SQL Server and has been for a long time ;-)


Denis The SQL Menace
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/denis_gobo/default.aspx

[Back to original message]