Re: DB clasical structure violation

so SQL is bad, what is the option?

On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 20:27:05 GMT, alfredo_at_nospam_ncs.es (Alfredo Novoa) wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:20:18 +0100, "Anthony W. Youngman"
><thewolery_at_nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I would say a theory is a logically and mathematically consistent set of
>>statements. That's pretty much your second definition.
>>
>>This is then proved (using statistics) to be a reasonable approximation
>>to what is observed in the real world, at which point it then falls
>>within the scope of your first definition.
>
>It is not only theory, it is scientifical theory.
>
>>
>>Take Newton's theory of Gravity ... if we exclude "fast" moving objects
>>(eg > c/10) and "massive" objects (eg > earth), we can prove that it
>>matches the real world perfectly well for our purposes.
>>
>>I look at SQL and set theory in exactly the same way - set theory is a
>>self-consistent view, that, within limitations matches the real world
>
>Set theory is not this. Set theory is a tautological abstract
>reasoning, it is not based on the real world although it may be
>inspired on it.
>
>Set theory (and mathematics) is not science in the strict sense of the
>word. Set theory and mathematics are tautological (orthogonal to the
>real world).
>
>>I find SQL
>>wonderful as an aid, but horribly restrictive as a constraint. You can't
>>fit a square in a circular hole.
>
>SQL is seriously flawed. See: http://www.dbdebunk.com and Chris Date's
>books.
>
>>>Who designed this crazy language anyhow? (anyway?)
>
>It was an incomplete experimental prototype.
>
>Codd warned IBM about it, but they wanted to make fast cash. Now we
>are still burdened with a bad intergalactic standard.
>
>
Received on Sat Jul 06 2002 - 03:30:18 CEST