Re: Transactions: good or bad?

Hi,
 Please would anyone be kind enough to tell me what do you mean by the term "arrow of time", I am hearing it for the first time.

Regards,
Rohan.

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:<lyaFa.111$5l4.30851118_at_mantis.golden.net>...
> "Todd Bandrowsky" <anakin_at_unitedsoftworks.com> wrote in message
> news:af3d9224.0306081935.7a35edfa_at_posting.google.com...
> > > Pointers? This is not clear yet.
> > >
> > > Anyway I think you are confusing transactions with data models. Don't.
> > >
> > > And the state-of-the-art is not transactions, but database assignment.
> > > So don't loose your time beating a dead horse.
> > >
> > > Your are messing relational with SQL. SQL is not relational, and has
> > > never been. Relational were QUEL, BS12, and now are Opus, Duro,
> Dataphor
> > > and perhaps LEAP.
> >
> > It's relational enough for the marketplace. You know, the people that
> > actually pay the bills.
>
> So you hope, but those are the same people he is trying to educate.
>
>
> > > You are messing testing with proving. Test cases aren't formal proofs.
> > > I hope I don't have to use software coded by you for reliability.
> >
> > And what is a formal proof but test cases based on internal
> > consistency?
>
> A proof, an axiomatized derivation of fact, where the derived fact is 100%
> certainty of correct outcome. Contrast this with a random hodge-podge of
> inputs for which one has verified outcome.
>
>
> > Turing PROVED they are all the same.
>
> Really? Would you care to point us to this alleged proof?
>
>
> > > Most customers don't understand what relational is all about. Most
> > > customers can't define what's relational any more than they can define
> > > what Mathematics is.
> >
> > Well then, what good is it?
>
> It is as good as any other strategic weapon of which the general population
> have profound ignorance.
>
>
> > > You could be clearer, but since you are confusing relational with SQL it
> > > probably doesn't matter anyway.
> >
> > Feature: better performance bounds for the given environment
>
> One cannot provide better performance than the best performance. You are
> simply making an unfounded claim.
>
>
> > Feature: a language easier to use for commodities
>
> Really? It is easier to use something other than mathematics for
> commodities?!? What attributes of mathematics make it unusable for
> commodities?
>
>
> > Look, if whatever there is to relational databases that SQL doesn't
> > have was so incredibly useful, then, don't you think IBM, Oracle, or
> > Microsoft might have been able to implement or sell them?
>
> They have been able to all along. In face, IBM implemented a couple of them
> already. However, these companies find it more convenient to make billions
> off of inferior technology than to educate an ignorant market. In fact,
> these companies find it more convenient to encourage the ignorance.
>
>
> > What is one feature a purely relational database has, that a SQL
> > Server or an Oracle does not?
>
> Logical identity. Physical independence. Logical independence. A
> well-founded robust user-defined type system. Oh shit, that's four already!
> Sorry, I cannot do it.
Received on Tue Jun 10 2003 - 14:21:07 CEST