nik boretos <nicolasb <at> maich.gr> writes:

> 
> Blake wrote:
> 
> > If Squeak is to be accepted into the business community at large, I 
> > would  say the website is way less imporant than the ability to slap 
> > down a grid,  hook it up to a database, and do some sort of live 
> > interaction.
> >
> > It's not really exciting--though it'd be nice to see Smalltalk 
> > principles  applied--but it's fundamental.
> >
> > I have a project right now I'd like to do in seaside, but it requires 
> > me  to be able to read and display a table on the web, something 
> > easily done  in other environments, but not in Squeak.
> >
> > Just an opinion. I keep looking for places to use Squeak in a 
> > business  context. Database connectivity and display is key.
> >
> I'll strongly second that...
> 
> nikos
> 
> 

About databases, this may be true because relational databases are a "de-facto" 
standard and a programmer dealing with legacy systems must talk with DB stuff. 
But in Squeak is available ODBC and ODBCEnh to help with this.

But the key, IMHO, is that relational databases smell bad. Isn't natural 
develop a Smalltalk system + relational DB. Is a way to freeze and tie our 
model and withdraw flexibility to our system.