|
|
sybperl-l Archive
Up Prev Next
From: Michael Peppler <mpeppler at peppler dot org>
Subject: sybperl vs. isql
Date: Apr 16 1999 3:26PM
Adam.Vile@barclayscapital.com writes:
> Something has been bothering me, so I thought I would share it.
>
> I am (I believe) a competent Perl programmer and would use Perl for all of
> my scripting needs if I could. I have used sybperl (and its derivatives)
> successfully but I can't help wondering why. Wouldn't opening an isql
> filehandle be just as good? Can anybody argue successfully for my continued
> used of sybperl?
When I first started using perl with Sybase (in 1990) I initially used
isql as a sub-process. First using temp files, then using a pair of
pseudo-ttys so that I could have the perl process write to and read
from a single isql session.
When I then was able to build the first version of sybperl (around
june 1990, when Larry added usersubs to perl 3.x) I noticed an
incredible speed increase (around 10 fold).
In addition to that, controlling the behaviour of the underlying isql
session is always tricky - how do you handle error conditions safely,
how do you parse results without risk of getting the delimiter
character in the result set itself?
All in all I would strongly encourage you to continue with sybperl (or
DBI/DBD::Sybase).
The technology is mature: 9 years of development and use by a fairly
large number of users in a wide variety of situations, and I've never
heard of any really serious problem.
Michael
--
Michael Peppler -||- Data Migrations Inc.
mpeppler@peppler.org -||- http://www.mbay.net/~mpeppler
Int. Sybase User Group -||- http://www.isug.com
Sybase on Linux mailing list: ase-linux-list@isug.com
|
