I find your assesment quite interesting. Besides the no brainers (its expensive and proprietary) the others are crap. SQL Server 2000, performs very well against the competitors according to independent bechmarks and tests. And is far easier to manage than most anything else (all the Sybase admins I know hate SQL server because it essentially puts them out of a job.)

Perhaps there is a touch of anti MS venom in what you say and it really has nothing to do with an objective analysis of the program itself?

Furthermore are you aware that you can use PerlScript from AS inside of SQL Server? IIRC Its the primary reason MS pumped so much money into AS and into perl itself, they were partially funding Sarathys work on 5.6 and the OnePerl project.

As a last comment, its probably not the best idea to be an anti-ms troll here. Its not really in the spirit of Perl or the Monastery itself. :-)

---
demerphq

_{<Elian> And I do take a kind of perverse pleasure in having an OO assembly language...}