Re: Warning about null and open question to Oracle

Tom Jamieson wrote:

>I agree. After 2 dozen responses over 5 days this thread has reached no
>consensus...for good reason. The general views seem to be:
 

>1. "It seems to me, nulls should work like...come on Oracle"
>2. "Sorry, Oracle is SQL standard compliant with respect to nulls..."
>3. "Forget nulls..."
 

>It would seem to me that you are all very interested in getting the job
>done. My advice to those interested in trying to learn nulls: Master the
 

>relational theory. To those who think they've got a better idea: Maybe.
 But
>unless you know the 25 year history of relational theory, you probably
 are
>suggesting nothing new. To those not inclined to study the theory: You're
 

>armchair quarterbacks. Get serious or get out of the business. You're
>doing your users a disservice. To those who defend three-valued logic
>(that's nulls for you quarterbacks): Good luck trying to get a user to
 take
>a course on set theory. If they don't understand nulls properly (and a
>quick glance at this thread suggests they won't), there's a good chance
 they
>will get wrong answers. Users need to get serious too, but three and
>four-value logic is a bit of a stretch.
 

>Tom Jamieson
>pp003009_at_interramp.com

So I assume Mr. Jamieson that new thought on any 25 year old subject is foolishness. I am glad that the writers of computer languages did not feel that way since we would all be discussing COBOL here and not ORACLE. Without discussion, no new ideas will appear. Even if some of the ideas were invented by someone else, the fact that the ANSI standard keeps changing says there is room for discussion and change. In short, Tom, you are way out of line.

Loyal Barber
barberl_at_aol.com Received on Mon Jun 26 1995 - 00:00:00 CEST