Since SQL Server doesn't have packages, what do programmers do to get around it?

Question

I have a SQL Server database that has a huge proliferation of stored procedures. Large numbers of stored procedures are not a problem in my Oracle databases because of the O

Answer 1

It is somewhat funny to see how emotional one can get over such a dry subject. The fact that Oracle has a feature that SQL Server does not seems to generate all kinds of reactions towards the disputable characteristics of this feature.

For starters, the question was in the style: there is this feature in Oracle that is being missed in SQL Server and what is the recommended approach.

No need to get emotional about it.

For those who do not like the packaging feature in Oracle, -for whatever the reason-, they still can go about it the same way one can do with SQL Server.

Getting more into the detail, there could be a follow-up question in the style: when modifying a function or procedure within a package, the entire package is invalidated and this "sucks", what would be the recommended way to avoid the sucking aspect.

Personally, I have never seen anyone complaining about not being able to modify a statically linked library in an executable without having to relink it.