>True, and since we remain compatible with SQL 2005 (I hope to be able to move that to SQL 2008R2 soon) I still can't use it
>
>SQL Server historically has been slow in adopting features that we all needed for a long time. The ability to process recursive querys came in 2005, Sequential IDs only in 2012 and the list_aggr() only in 2017 while all other popular RDBMSs' had such a feature for a long time.

There's no question, we've seen a pattern for a long time:

- A core feature might exist in other database engines but not in MS SQL Server
- Developers will roll their own solutions/workarounds
- MS SQL will, years later, implement the core feature

The sequence object was one. Another one is Change Data Capture, which largely (but not completely) means you don't need to use triggers for audit trails. There are others as well.

When I taught SQ; Server, I joked with my students that they needed to be history majors as well - i.e., "what year did Microsoft add feature such-and-such". I even had a few test questions - trying to stress to them the need to know when MS implemented a feature (since you could walk into an organization using multiple versions of SQL).

Now, there is a "grass is always greener" context as well - I know Oracle people who have similar complaints about features and versions.

The MS Trajectory with SQL has been a hybrid approach - trying to grow both a database platform and a business intelligence platform. At any one time it meant more focus in one area versus another. I try to be honest and fair-handed in my assessment of them - right now one of my biggest hopes (and biggest frustrations) is the way they are growing their reporting/dashboarding solution with SSRS and Power BI. They'll add some cool features, but it will still lack some core features that really should have been in there all along.

To this day, I wish we still had a Borland around. They produced great software and they kept MS on their toes. People can say there are other current competitors working against MS, but I still say Borland (in it's time) produced some fantastic products.

Finally, and I can't believe I'm saying this - I've had to work some in DB2 for the last year, and I don't hate it as much as I expected. :)