Posted by RickW on 03/07/06 06:29

Ignoring the rude, ego-inflated hot air that blasts off the page, I
reply with a few details.

I don't think our company is going to disappear because 31 views had an
Order By clause in them. In about two hours I moved about half the
Order By clauses to the SQL-building routines in the front end of the
application, and the rest will finish tomorrow. I was hoping to leave
the sorting on the machine with the muscle, but too bad for me.

I have not read any of Tony Rogerson's postings, and if your tone in the
responses in this thread are a sample of yours, I don't plan to rush to
find them. Come to think of it, if becoming a REAL SQL PROGRAMMER means
having to talk to people as you do, I may not worry too much about
taking that path, either.

You said: "A VIEW with an ordering is absurd; a VIEW is a table and **by
definition** has no ordering. DUH! And it always has been that way since
1986. This is no surprise to REAL SQL programmers."

Well DUH, and DUH again. (If we had better graphics, you could put
little frownie faces as the dots on your i's, too.) Your friend DP will
tell you that a view does not always return a table, properly speaking.
You say it does. If so, then doesn't a stored procedure also return a
table? And if so, why is it okay to sort a table returned by a stored
procedure?

And I'm not surprised at all by any of what anyone has said here. I'm a
bit ticked that a very useful feature, in place for almost a decade, was
taken away without more reasonable notice. I would have thought it
would show up on the MSDN page I quoted in an earlier reply.

I will assume that your suggestion to contact you offline is an attempt
at humor. If so, it's a pretty good one. You can't possibly think that
anything you said in your reply would make working with you seem
appealing.

Let me think...Wouldn't I love to hire someone who loves to insult
people, who writes like an angry teenager, and who overrates his own
understanding and abilities with every pronouncement? And who wraps
exactly one informative sentence ("a VIEW is a table and **by
definition** has no ordering") in 10 ranting insults? Hmmmm. Tough
call.

Come to think of it, I'm curious: Why exactly did you bother to reply?
Did you accomplish what you intended? What exactly was that?




Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was
killed by an ugly fact. -- Thomas Huxley

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

[Back to original message]