fitzjarrell_at_cox.net wrote:
> Haximus wrote:
>
>>>Sometimes 'innovative thinking' isn't so innovative, nor in the
>
> best
>
>>>interest of the language. This is one such case.
>>
>>I will give you a little analogy of your way of thinking: the boss
>
> sends
>
>>you out for a selection of donuts and dutifully you head down to
>
> Dunkin'
>
>>Donuts or where ever. The first thing you notice is that the boss'
>
> list
>
>>matches the offering at the store identically, only one item they
>
> have isn't
>
>>on the list - a plain donut. Now, most people will say "give me one
>
> of
>
>>everything except the plain donut!" But not Fitzy, due to his
>
> stubborn
>
>>nature he must verbally list each and all the donuts specified in the
>
> list,
>
>>one by one, to his server. Meanwhile people are waiting in line
>
> behind
>
>>Fitzy, wondering wtf he doesn't just specify which ones he DOESN'T
>
> wan't in
>
>>order to save time.
>
>
> How does comparing a programming language to a natural language make
> this a valid analogy? You're showing your 'innovative' though process
> again, and it's failed miserably this time, too. Please stop
> attemtpting to bolster your ludicrous suggestion with vain attempts at
> logic, as logical proof is obviously not your strong point.
You didn't spend too much time thinking about that response I can see.
Please tell me which Oracle DML/DDL doesn't have a direct natural
language equivalent? It's 'natural' to mold technology to recognize
human language interfaces, that's what makes technology easily adoptable
by the masses, that's what makes business more productive, and that's
what makes Oracle lots of money. You must really yearn for the days
when the pocket-protector gang with the horn-rimmed glasses were the
only ones who could talk to a database.
Received on Thu Feb 24 2005 - 12:21:37 CST
