forrest@blia.BLI.COM (Jon Forrest) (09/11/87)
There has been some discussion recently of the quality of several
RDBMS products, particularly Oracle. This reminds me of something
I've been wondering about for a while. I see Oracle, Ingres,
Sybase, and other systems coming out in many different operating
system environments. This makes lots of sense can't this is what
the market place demands. What concerns me is how such systems
are written to work in all these different environments. Specifically,
how much code is portable and how much has to be rewritten for each
environment? This is important because writing new code for each
environment increases the chances of bugs appearing.
One of the nice features I like about Britton Lee (which I'd like
even if I weren't an employee) is the fact that about 80% (a guess)
of our host software code is portable across all environments we
support. This means that the same code is used in all environments,
this descreasing the chances of bugs appearing. It also make the
software engineering work a lot easier.
I'd like to hear from other companies how they manage their
software in order to make it work in different software environments.
I'll be glad to describe how we do it.
Jon Forrest
ucbvax!mtxinu!blia!forrest
{pyramid|voder}!blia!forresttim@mtxinu.UUCP (Tim Wood) (09/14/87)
In reply to: forrest@blia.BLI.COM (Jon Forrest) <3265@blia.BLI.COM> > ... I see Oracle, Ingres, > Sybase, and other systems coming out in many different operating system > environments. ... What concerns me is how such systems are written to > work in all these different environments. Specifically, how much code > is portable and how much has to be rewritten for each environment? > ... > One of the nice features I like about Britton Lee (which I'd like > even if I weren't an employee) is the fact that about 80% (a guess) > of our host software code is portable across all environments we > support. don't you recognize that rehosting technology is some of the most sensitive there is in a software organization? Being able to leverage software across several hardware environments is a critical internal feature: one that is difficult to conceptualize, design and develop, and has major implications for the life cycle. No engineer who understands the value of such proprietary techniques should do more than wave his/her arms (in _very_ wide circles) to answer your questions. Since BLI is a competitor to Sybase (actually, we were started by some disaffected BLI-ers who had a better idea), I ain't sayin' nuttin'! I will observe that since BLI software is tied to single-vendor BLI hardware, BLI porting issues are probably insignificant compared those faced by Sybase, Oracle and RTI; these companies run between five and 15(?) different environments. I understand that Britton-Lee actually runs (or is about to run) on other than the 16-bit Z8000! But, from how many vendors can you buy this new machine? -Tim Wood {{ihnp4!ptsfa},pyramid,{uunet,ucbvax}!mtxinu}!sybase!tim -- {{ihnp4!ptsfa},pyramid,{uunet,ucbvax}!mtxinu}!sybase!tim
tim@mtxinu.UUCP (Tim Wood) (09/14/87)
In article <436@mtxinu.UUCP>, I write in response to blia!forrest: > don't you recognize that rehosting technology is some of the most > sensitive there is in a software organization? ... > > Since BLI is a competitor to Sybase (actually, we were started by > some disaffected BLI-ers who had a better idea), I ain't sayin' nuttin'! ... > > -Tim Wood > {{ihnp4!ptsfa},pyramid,{uunet,ucbvax}!mtxinu}!sybase!tim PS I forgot to disclaim that: The above posting represents my opinion, not necessarily that of Sybase, Inc. or any of its other employees. Though not required to do this, I wanted to distinguish between my view of the DBMS scene and Sybase's. -TW -- {{ihnp4!ptsfa},pyramid,{uunet,ucbvax}!mtxinu}!sybase!tim