Talk:User-defined function

SQL is not the only programming language that uses user defined functions. For example ColdFusion also uses them. I’m not sure how many other languages use this term however. Should this article be expanded to include other uses of user defined functions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rwblackburn (talk • contribs) 13:50, April 15, 2005 UTC.

Yes... it should :) Unfortunately I don't know enough to do it without some research. —Seqsea (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, almost any useful programming language lets you re-use your own code. I don't think that is the point of UDF. (Note: I am an Electrical Engineer who can program, not a Computer Science major, so I may be wrong here!) I believe the point is that SQL - Q is QUERY. So if you can get the SERVER to do something for you that is not a query, that's a big deal. The computation is offloaded from the client. I think that this diff should be reverted because if not it is going to explode into a Hello World page showing how to define a function in every possible language, drowning out the uniqueness of the SQL implementation... -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 17:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "User Defined Function" is rare in modern programming, because it describes almost all code that is written, so there's no need to turn this into an enormous list. I mentioned BASIC because there's a language feature that is generally referred to as "user defined function". You don't talk about UDF in C or Lisp or any modern language, it's assumed. I take the point about the significance client side vs server side processing, but I don't think the phrase "user defined function" really captures it; after all, in SQL all functions (such as arithmetic or string functions) are evaluated on the server. I do agree that there would be no benefit in listing a lo tof languages. Amcguinn 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: move the BASIC section below the SQL section, and rename it as "other uses of the term" with something along the lines of "'User defined function' in some older programming languages was used to describe a function written by the programmer rather than included with the language - such usage has become obsolete since in structured programming virtually all program code consists of user defined functions" - would that be better? Amcguinn 19:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great suggestion. Maybe even massage what I wrote above a little as to why it's a big deal in these two cases...? I'd work on it, but I am out of town for a week starting in the morn... -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 03:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stored procedure

I'd been racking my brains to remember what I used to refer to database user-defined functions as, and I remembered "stored procedure". There's already an article there.

The options are:

Make this page a redirect to Stored procedure
Make it a brief account of user defined functions in different contexts, including a link to stored procedure
Delete this altogether.

- Amcguinn 10:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response. ;) Then redirect. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 11:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion: Merge the BASIC portion with the main BASIC article. Merge the database portion into Stored Procedure. Then delete. -- PabSungenis 14:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BASIC#Procedures_and_flow_control already refers to the DEF FN syntax - I don't think anything here adds to that. It would only really be useful here as an answer to "What does 'User defined function' mean", but that is possibly too dictionary-like for WP. Amcguinn 15:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stored procedures are very different than user-defined functions. This article was incorrect to say that UDFs are stored procs. I've fixed it up and removed the merge request. -- Mikeblas 21:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Why isn't the title of this topic "User-defined function"? -- Mikeblas 14:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]