Re: The Practical Benefits of the Relational Model
Date: 20 Sep 2002 10:46:14 -0700
"David Cressey" <david_at_dcressey.com> wrote in message news:<5Y0i9.96$0I3.5569_at_petpeeve.ziplink.net>...
> At this stage, my question is, "what makes sense, going forward?" Should a
> new language be developed, that takes on a different from SQL's mission,
> but one that overlaps SQL's mission? It sounds, from the discussion of "D"
> and its family of languages, as though the answer is "yes", at least for
> some of the important authors. If a new language is developed, is that
> going to increase or decrease the total amount of confusion generated by the
> present plethora of languages? Does anybody care?
First, let's assume that the "new" language supports all functionality required for both the relational and imperative aspects of ANY application. If this is not the case, than such language doesn't really qualify to replace or improve anything. So let's assume this is the case. By necessity, the injection of this new language into an existing developer's paradigm implies increased complexity. Once introduced however, complexity is clearly reduced.
Do people care? I think that most practitioners do care, they just don't know it! ;-) They care when they are given a new tool that dramatically increases their productivity. Similarly, they care when competition gets such a tool and suddenly increases their productivity. What they don't care about is unimplemented theory. We cared enough (as tools AND application practitioners) to implement what we feel is the "new" language. :-)
-- Nathan AllanReceived on Fri Sep 20 2002 - 19:46:14 CEST