Re: Using a Database within Windows + Dyalog APL

On Apr 22, 9:15 am, "jk" <*a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (remove the asterisks)>
wrote:
> "Gosi" <gos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:bc4bb763-3121-4c64-98bf-55e230430326@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 7:00 am, Dick Bowman <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> "jk" <*a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (remove the asterisks)> wrote in
news:480c679d$0
> >> $25476$ba620...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> > "aleph0" <apl68...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>
>news:820de252-ea05-4843-b7fa-d3a3f0ca2256@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >>> ... and take 200 times overhead for granted
>
> >> >> Is it really "that" bad ?
> >> >> .. say compared to MySQL.
>
> >> > that's like comparing 20 inches of snow with 21
>
> >> Gennelmen...
>
> >> Are we having a self-destructive argument here?
>
> >> There are good reasons for choosing to use either a "general"
SQL-based
> >> database (MySQL, SQLite, DB2, and many others) or a roll-your-own
data
> >> storage scheme.  The application and the context dictates.
>
> >> I've achieved quite adequate performance interfacing from APL (and J)
to a
> >> variety of "standard" relational databases.
>
> >> The point really is that it is quite easy for us to write
applications in
> >> APL2, Dyalog, APLX or J (don't have any recent APL*PLUS/2000/Next
> >> experience) that can share their data with applications written in
other
> >> languages - all the vendors have done a great job for us and we need
to get
> >> the message out that Jerry Turner put into his book title twenty
years
> >> ago...
>
> >> APL Is Easy!
>
> > There are people who may agree that APL is Easy and I find it so.
> > On the other hand there seems to be hell of a lot of others who do not
> > agree for some reason.
> > I for one would very much like to find out why.
> > Over and over I have demonstrated to people how easy it is and they
> > say wow and then nothing happens in most cases.
> > I have started to think that may APL is not so easy after all.
> > There is something not right.
> > I think I know some of the problems and I am doing some experiments to
> > correct them.
> > Mind you those problems are not technical.
> > As far as technique is concerned APL is superior.
>
> Thanks Dick Bowman.
> I agree with Gosi -
> I never got any finger (even the little) behind MS ACCESS for instance,
which is
> meant for the masses, I find that a dragon, while I've built numerous
rather
> complex APL applications.
> ... must be something with a particular constellation of the brains,
fudder for
> brain-experts.
> (I've met e.g. numerous musicians amongst the APL-ers).
> jk

MS Access is like super excel.
It is a grid and it is easy to look at data in rows and columns.
When you extend Excel with more and more tables it becomes easier to
move the data over to MS Access and you get more programming/viewing/
reporting options.
You are basically with in a workspace with a lot of two dimensional
tabes/nouns/verbs/functions/variables.
APL would in a similar way be a super Access.
With later years grid options it would be nice to be able to have
Excel/Access approach for beginners in APL.
Like when you start in Excel/Access the user is presented with a grid
with his data present.
It is very easy to be a beginner in Excel and experts can actually do
amazing things but it is fairly complex to do difficult things.
With Access experienced users can do a lot more than in Excel.
In APL we usually start with a Notepad/Vi/<any text editor> look
showing a blank screen.
It is relatively difficult to do simple tasks but the more complicated
things get the easier it becomes relatively in APL.
So I guess we are loosing quite a lot of beginners to the Excel/Access
crowd and they never or very seldom think that it is worth their while
to come over to us.