top | item 3851667

(no title)

quadrant | 14 years ago

That apocryphal last comment is irrelevant though as the code bases entire split many, many, versions ago. (pre 7.0)

discuss

order

Locke1689|14 years ago

Why wouldn't it be relevant? It emphasizes that SQL Server has been a product longer than Google has been a company. Moreover, there's still Sybase code still in the project.

Is the Sybase code the biggest problem? Hell no. How about the fact that there is no "standard library" and there are no less than four different hash table implementations written by different people at different times -- only one of which you should probably use, although you wouldn't know it from the "documentation"? That's a pretty big one and almost definitely what I'd characterize as "historical baggage."

Tyrannosaurs|14 years ago

And if memory serves it's been through at least one, possibly two ground up rewrites since then.

endersshadow|14 years ago

It's been through massive rewrites, but they didn't throw away the code and start from scratch. They took five years (between SQL 2000 and SQL 2005) and completely revamped the offering. Looking at SQL 2012, it's really quite impressive how far they've come along, albeit in 12 years.