firstname.lastname@example.org (Eric Knauel) writes:
> RT Happe <email@example.com> writes:
> > (lisp) wrote:
> >> Does anyone have a copy of this they could email me a link to?
> > You can pull it from scsh 0.5.3, I think, which you'll find on the
> > scsh.net download page.
> I think, that this implementation of ODBC support for scsh is
> dead. That applies to scsh-sql as well.
> However, there is a new implementation of ODBC bindings in the CVS
> head. Please take a look at scsh/scsh/odbc; this directory also
> contains a README that explains how to build scsh with ODBC support.
> There is no higher level API to databases (like scsh-sql) available
> yet. The good news is: we're currently working on porting SchemeQL
> (see <http://schematics.sourceforge.net/>) to scsh. Regarding
> abstraction, SchemeQL goes much further than scsh-sql did.
My two cents:
Hiding the ODBC gunk is definitely a good idea. Java, Python and Perl
all have interfaces to SQL which are much more pleasant to work with
However, I'm not convinced that abstracting away SQL like SchemeQL
does is always a win. While developing and experimenting, alternating
between programming and trying things out in interactive SQL, you'll
end up mentally translating back and forth between SQL and
SchemeQL. And if you want to exchange ideas and experiences with
others, you'll probably have to express them in terms of SQL.
Conclusion: A non-icky interface which preserves SQL syntax is also needed.