We need it for auditing

don't have the budget to buy more disks

So, I guess those disks are more expensive than your worktime dealing with this POS?

Forumtroll

@Xyro said:
Oracle's SQL Developer exists, but I'm not sure how general-purpose it is. Theoretically it can be used on non-Oracle databases, but I have no experience with that.

Theoretically it can be used on Oracle databases too, but I would advise against that.

Hark, a prophet hath spake the truth!

boomzilla

@bjolling said:

@Sutherlands said:
@bridget99 said:
Toad is Java? It never ceases to amaze me that people try and make production-quality software in an interpreted language.
Yeah, which is why nobody uses C# or VB.Net.

I'm not sure what your point is but C# and VB.Net are not interpreted languages. At compile-time it is compiled into IL and at first execution it uses a Just-In-Time compiler.

Whoosh.

Xyro

@steenbergh said:

@Xyro said:
Oracle's SQL Developer exists, but I'm not sure how general-purpose it is. Theoretically it can be used on non-Oracle databases, but I have no experience with that.

Theoretically it can be used on Oracle databases too, but I would advise against that.

I'm not going to disagree.

bjolling

@boomzilla said:

@bjolling said:
@Sutherlands said:
@bridget99 said:
Toad is Java? It never ceases to amaze me that people try and make production-quality software in an interpreted language.
Yeah, which is why nobody uses C# or VB.Net.
I'm not sure what your point is but C# and VB.Net are not interpreted languages. At compile-time it is compiled into IL and at first execution it uses a Just-In-Time compiler.

Whoosh.

Please explain why the whoosh

Bridget is against using an interpreted language like Java for production quality software
Sutherland sarcastically (?) points out that plenty of people use C# or VB

Why do I get the woosh here? As I pointed out statement 2 has no relation whatsoever to statement 1 because C# is NOT an interpreted language. So why does he even bring it up?

It's like someone saying that Boomzilla should stop flaming BlakeyRat all the time and then responding: but [b]nobody[/b] likes cake on TDWTF. Followed by me pointing out that BlakeyRat is NOT a cake

Edit:

Wait a minute...maybe a fruit cake?

Ilya_Ehrenburg

@bjolling said:

Please explain why the *whoosh*
Bridget is against using an interpreted language like Java for production quality software
Sutherland sarcastically (?) points out that plenty of people use C# or VB
Why do I get the woosh here? As I pointed out statement 2 has no relation whatsoever to statement 1

One can disagree.

because C# is NOT an interpreted language.

Because Java isn't one either.

bjolling

@Ilya Ehrenburg said:

@bjolling said:
Please explain why the *whoosh*
Bridget is against using an interpreted language like Java for production quality software
Sutherland sarcastically (?) points out that plenty of people use C# or VB
Why do I get the woosh here? As I pointed out statement 2 has no relation whatsoever to statement 1

One can disagree.

I can imagine. Although I would have liked a better answer than just "woosh" which is why I posted. So can someone please at least hint at the relation between those 2 statements? @Ilya Ehrenburg said:

because C# is NOT an interpreted language.
Because Java isn't one either.

I never claimed it was. I don't do Java

Ilya_Ehrenburg

@bjolling said:

@Ilya Ehrenburg said:
@bjolling said:
Please explain why the *whoosh*
Bridget is against using an interpreted language like Java for production quality software
Sutherland sarcastically (?) points out that plenty of people use C# or VB
Why do I get the woosh here? As I pointed out statement 2 has no relation whatsoever to statement 1

One can disagree.
I can imagine. Although I would have liked a better answer than just "woosh" which is why I posted. So can someone please at least hint at the relation between those 2 statements?

Sure. bridget99 (indirectly) calls Java an interpreted language and implies it is therefore unfit for production quality software. Sutherland (indirectly) points out that C# and VB are as interpreted as Java, so by that reasoning would also be unfit for production quality software.

@Ilya Ehrenburg said:
because C# is NOT an interpreted language.
Because Java isn't one either.
I never claimed it was.

You didn't, but bridget99 did.

I don't do Java

Which could explain why you didn't understand the relation of Sutherland's reply to bridget99's remark.

boomzilla

@bjolling said:

@boomzilla said:
@bjolling said:
@Sutherlands said:
@bridget99 said:
Toad is Java? It never ceases to amaze me that people try and make production-quality software in an interpreted language.
Yeah, which is why nobody uses C# or VB.Net.

I'm not sure what your point is but C# and VB.Net are not interpreted languages. At compile-time it is compiled into IL and at first execution it uses a Just-In-Time compiler.

Whoosh.

Please explain why the whoosh

Your description of those languages matches....wait for it....Java! Now, re-read what Sutherlands wrote, but this time with your sarcasm detector turned on.

bjolling

@boomzilla said:

@bjolling said:
@boomzilla said:
@bjolling said:
@Sutherlands said:
@bridget99 said:
Toad is Java? It never ceases to amaze me that people try and make production-quality software in an interpreted language.
Yeah, which is why nobody uses C# or VB.Net.

I'm not sure what your point is but C# and VB.Net are not interpreted languages. At compile-time it is compiled into IL and at first execution it uses a Just-In-Time compiler.

Whoosh.

Please explain why the whoosh

Your description of those languages matches....wait for it....Java! Now, re-read what Sutherlands wrote, but this time with your sarcasm detector turned on.

I should have known not to take anything that Bridget says at face value. He is always wrong when it comes to .NET so why would he be right about Java :(

Xyro

@bjolling said:

I should have known not to take anything that Bridget says at face value. He is always wrong when it comes to .NET so why would he be right about Java :(

I believe this statement can be generalized for a great many things.

blakeyrat

@bjolling said:

I should have known not to take anything that Bridget says at face value. He is always wrong when it comes to .NET so why would he be right about Java :(

The funny thing is Bridget is kind of right, but has the wrong reasoning. Java isn't bad because it's interpreted (and as others here have stated, it's not really interpreted anyway), it's bad because Java has no good, or even passable, native GUI libraries. Meanwhile, .net has several.

Sutherlands

@blakeyrat said:

@bjolling said:
I should have known not to take anything that Bridget says at face value. He is always wrong when it comes to .NET so why would he be right about Java :(
The funny thing is Bridget is kind of right, but has the wrong reasoning. Java isn't bad because it's interpreted (and as others here have stated, it's not really interpreted anyway), it's bad because Java has no good, or even passable, native GUI libraries. Meanwhile, .net has several.

I don't find that very funny at all.

blakeyrat

@Sutherlands said:

@blakeyrat said:
@bjolling said:
I should have known not to take anything that Bridget says at face value. He is always wrong when it comes to .NET so why would he be right about Java :(
The funny thing is Bridget is kind of right, but has the wrong reasoning. Java isn't bad because it's interpreted (and as others here have stated, it's not really interpreted anyway), it's bad because Java has no good, or even passable, native GUI libraries. Meanwhile, .net has several.
I don't find that very funny at all.

Try this.

Sutherlands

@blakeyrat said:

Try this.

That was pretty cool. It's not very funny, but it's pretty cool.

Xyro

@blakeyrat said:

it's bad because Java has no good, or even passable, native GUI libraries.

Sure it does! For example, it can output HTML. This can be read by a native browser. See? No problem!

Sutherlands

@Xyro said:

@blakeyrat said:
it's bad because Java has no good, or even passable, native GUI libraries.
Sure it does! For example, it can output HTML. This can be read by a native browser. See? No problem!

"String" is a native GUI library?

steenbergh

@Xyro said:

@blakeyrat said:
it's bad because Java has no good, or even passable, native GUI libraries.

Sure it does! For example, it can output HTML. This can be read by a native browser. See? No problem!

Isn't it sad that the only way to make it look like anything resembling a UI is through an external rpogram (i.e. a browser)...

AndyCanfield

@steenbergh said:

@Xyro said:
@blakeyrat said:
it's bad because Java has no good, or even passable, native GUI libraries.
Sure it does! For example, it can output HTML. This can be read by a native browser. See? No problem!
Isn't it sad that the only way to make it look like anything resembling a UI is through an external rpogram (i.e. a browser)...

I use PHP and Java to output HTML to a browser. Everything is on the server; no need to install anything on the client machine. Firefox looks about the same whether the client is on a Windows or OS X or Linux box. Recently we've been using browscap to adkist tp mobile phones. Can any other GUI run out-of-the-box on Windows, OS/X, Linux, Android, iOS, and Blackberry? The<var class="filename"></var> client machine can be next to the server or on the other side of the world. I haven't written GUI code for years; wouldn't want to. GUI is obsolete - HTML and JavaScript and AJAX are the way to go today.

havokk

@AndyCanfield said:

GUI is obsolete - HTML and JavaScript and AJAX are the way to go today.

Except for the guy in the "Should I do what it says?" thread with JavaScript turned off.

boomzilla

@steenbergh said:

@Xyro said:
@blakeyrat said:
it's bad because Java has no good, or even passable, native GUI libraries.

Sure it does! For example, it can output HTML. This can be read by a native browser. See? No problem!

Isn't it sad that the only way to make it look like anything resembling a UI is through an external rpogram (i.e. a browser)...

C'mon, even blakey would agree that you can get java programs to resemble a GUI! But a UI is a much lower bar, and I'm pretty sure that java can interact with a native console / shell combination just fine.