[chasil]

An enormous flaw of Sybase/Microsoft SQL Server is that it does not implement the SQL/PSM standard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL/PSM

The syntax for this does come largely from Oracle.

"SQL/PSM is derived, seemingly directly, from Oracle's PL/SQL. Oracle developed PL/SQL and released it in 1991, basing the language on the US Department of Defense's Ada programming language."

In any case, I have thousands of lines of PL/SQL written by many people which are currently useless for SQL Server applications.

SQL Server should implement SQL/PSM. The sooner, the better.

For those trying to escape the licensing costs of SQL Server, Babelfish may be an option.

https://babelfishpg.org/

[munchler]

Sybase SQL Server hasn't been a thing for at least a decade. The Microsoft fork happened more than 30 years ago.

[sbuttgereit]

And yet.... it lives still....

https://www.sap.com/products/technology-platform/sybase-ase....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Server_Enterprise

[hodgesrm]

> An enormous flaw of Sybase/Microsoft SQL Server is that it does not implement the SQL/PSM standard.

Why is this a problem? I've always enjoyed T-SQL. Right from the start it had a "scripty" feel and stored procedures were easy to code with it. We thought about implementing PSM at Sybase in the 1990s but there was little user demand. (Unlike row level locking, the lack of which undid Sybase SAP implementations...) Internally many of the engineers thought PSM was pretty awful to use. I never liked it myself.

[chasil]

It is an ANSI standard, implemented by many databases.

SQLite's trigger syntax appears to be conformant.

Transact SQL has much fewer implementations, and standards conformance enables interoperability. The SQL Server family is lacking in this respect.