Hi Jim,

>>When I read your article about MySQL in CoDe (Nov/Dec 2003 "PDC Issue") I >>felt that it really was a veiled advertisement for SQL Server.

>>What you've written here has confirmed that in MY eyes. My thinking until >>I read this was that I must be wrong because the "Editor in Chief" in >>particular wouldn't stoop so low (it's his job to spot such in other >>articles and ensure they don't make it into the magazine). I was obviously >>wrong.


Funny when I wrote that article I simply used SQL Server as a comparison and found that it is very similar to SQL Server dev in many ways. With the exception of features I found lacking I liked MySQL. As a quote I said

"Now a short time later I find that MySQL is a nice database platform that I may recommend for some database applications to my clients. I say some because MySQL while robust is missing some very critical features needed for real enterprise applications"

Funny this looks kinda balanced to me. What is stooping low in this Jim ? Did I lie, did I mis state facts ? I don't think so.

From other people I heard things like "Nice article It took some of the confusion away", or "MySQL seems pretty easy to work with."


>>And since I am now communicating with you about the magazine, I also felt >>that it was wrong of you, in your "Hearts and Minds" editorial, to say >>both: "Earlier versions of Visual Basic .NET short circuited but Microsoft >>listened to the whining of VB6 developers on this issue and backed down >>and bloated the language" and "So yes, that's one of probably several ways >>that Visual Basic .NET is bloated.".
>>These statements are disturbing on several counts but I'll only discuss >>two:
>>1) Were C/C++ people so vocal and so public so you know for certain that >>C# was not in any way 'bloated' by pressure from its user base?
>>2) I would expect a magazine like CoDe to go to bat for developers who >>expose short-comings in any product/language/facility/feature and >>certainly not belittle them. You have a strange idea of "bloat" if it >>includes things that developers need to be able to do a good job, which by >>definition has to include optimal backwards compatibility.

Jim, on the issue of my editorial... What exactly is the problem with discussing the bloatededness of a language. Specifically you discuss my comments about short circuiting. Yes I do believe it was whining on the part of VB developers about this feature so now the language has AND and ANDALSO.
I called it whining because, in my opinion (which is what editors have), that is what it was.

As for your comment 1. I dont know what you are asking here. I didn't talk about the evolution of C++ or C# and what their developers asked for. I talked about C# being a cleaner language.

As for comment 2. My definition of bloat is not strange, It is correct. I didnt agree with the addition of another AND command in the language. As for backward compatability, VB.NET is a new deal and there is/was no guarantee of backward compatability. Heck VFP is backward compatable to the FoxBase 1.x day... Still using a lot of @SAY/GET code are you ?

As for sticking up for developers: we do try to be balanced at the magazine. Heck we have one of the biggest contrarians (Jonathan Goodyear)writing for us now. We have also published criticisms from other authors like Rick Strahl.

Thanks for your comments. I hope I cleared up any confusion you may have had.

Rodman