Check this out..

http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/jeffs/archive/2005/05/24/5248.aspx

Sounds like the SQL team read Joel's book on UI design, but forgot to read C.J. Date !!!!!

Uh Vineet, its a joke, its all a joke.

and heres me thing that it was so crudely and obviously a joke that it just wasn't that funny...

Well I'll grant you that, #1 was funny the rest are just too similar to what folk say to do anything except make my sinuses itch.

I was trying to make that joke sound serious (apparently I have become quite nervy after clicked on that anus link on the sidebar).

Several funny points, but a couple that are somewhat questionable.

For instance

"10.  Table and Column referencing!"

While they mock it, SQL Server's c, or rather standard SQL, onfusing acceptance of variables in some places, and only accepting literals in others, is one of the perplexing elements to many users, and it's one of the primary reasons dangerous dynamic SQL ends up in code. While one could claim it's for SQL standards compliance, or due to query plan optimizations, both are unsupportable argument.

TOP, for instance, only allowed literals, but with 2005 they finally added the ability to use a variable for the top count, removing the need for a lot of dynamic SQL.

"TOP, for instance, only allowed literals, but with 2005 they finally added the ability to use a variable for the top count, removing the need for a lot of dynamic SQL."
Oh man, that one drives me nuts.  I don't know why, but that one particular thing infuriates me more than anything else.
Well, except for SQL Server escalating locks.  But that's another story entirely.

"What is the deal with..."


Seinfeld could pull that off. No-one else can.