>Yawn.
>
>Walter, last year you kept criticizing my statement about how stored procs can be flexibile - NULL handling was part of your argument. Well, I demonstrated to everyone how you can use sprocs for updates that handle NULLs as well as "change-tracking". I know that a few people wound up using what I posted.

That took you about 6 to 9 months to answer and several pressing from me to come with it. Great. And the procedure still has problems. The discussion of SPs not being flexible is a different one and not only scoped to the problems with the updates done via an SP. Your solution and the SPT one are not equivalent anyways.

But that is really not the intention of the topic posted here.
Do you stand corrected that my statement "Design patterns are more easily implemented in dynamic languages" now the links confirm my statment ? Or do you still want to slap me with demonstratebly correct statements?

Kevin, it is not my fault you keep on posting incorrect and flawed statments and don't even take the time to investigate why. If you took the time investigate you could have known there was some foundation to my statement.

Now just leave the anger there, and do something positive with it. Read the links and learn WHY the statement I made was true and what the reasoning behind it is. Esspecially the last link is giving some in depth inside between the differences between the two types of programming languages. If you keep banging someone for not liking to hear what he has to say, you're not willing to learn.