Re: The BOOLEAN data type

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:cd3b3cf.0304012233.125c4c54_at_posting.google.com...
> Costin Cozianu <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<b6dj3g$41m9f$1_at_ID-152540.news.dfncis.de>...
> > That's news to me :) First it's news that SQL had foundations. If it was
> > founded on relational model, than not only a boolean data type would be
> > unharmful, but would be almost mandatory.
> >
> > Aside from the above quibble, it's socking news to me that booleans are
> > sign of bad programming. On the contrary, lack of booleans is a sign of
> > bad programming, and lack of support for boolean data type is a sign of
> > bad language design.
> >
> > You should really go read up on good old Dijsktra, he knew a few things
> > about programming ...
> >
> > Google for EWD1284
>
> He did indeed know a few things about programming. An excellent and
> enjoyable read--thanks for suggesting it.

I'll second that.

Also it was pleasing, but hardly surprising to find that Edsger saying "I do not think that object orientated programming ... meets my standards of elegance"

Regards
Paul Vernon
Business Intelligence, IBM Global Services Received on Wed Apr 02 2003 - 16:01:26 CEST