Re: Transactions: good or bad?

"Todd Bandrowsky" <anakin_at_unitedsoftworks.com> wrote in message news:af3d9224.0306110907.7ec0f55c_at_posting.google.com...
> I have the blue Date book on my shelf at home. It's called
> "SYBASE"... :-)
Did you miss the "with any profit" part?

> I used it to learn SQL Server and get a feel for Oracle. For someone
> that disavowes relational databases (as he did in a later book), he
> certainly seemed proud of SQL.

He has every reason to feel vindicated that SQL proved the relational model
is implementable even if SQL failed to implement the relational model fully
and accurately.

> So I think for you to say that relational theory and SQL Servers are
> not the same is disingenous.

It is disingenuous to insist that SQL is relational. SQL uses some relational principles while ignoring many others. SQL is the only commercially successful language based in any way on relational principles;
however, it ignores the most fundamental principles. A relational dbms represents data as relations or sets. An SQL dbms represents data as tables or bags.

It is particularly disingenuous to insist the problems SQL causes by flouting relational principles are problems of relational dbmses.

> It's like, these guys don't take any
> responsibility for the beast that they have made.

Date did not make the beast.

> > Seems to me you never read Date, Darwen, Codd, McGoveran & Pascal with
> > any profit. Your posts are full of misinformation, with no usefulness
at
> > all. Sorry.
Received on Sat Jun 14 2003 - 05:08:04 CEST