Re: Relational Databases and Their Guts

"Todd Bandrowsky" <anakin_at_unitedsoftworks.com> wrote in message news:af3d9224.0306192047.33753c35_at_posting.google.com...
> > SQL does not define RDBMS. When you insist on idiosynchratic definitions
of
> > words and terms, you refuse to communicate. I suggest you open a
dictionary
> > from time to time. If you find books tiresome, try
> > http://www.dictionary.com/
>
> I understand your point completely, and it is unfortunately you
> overlooked my carefully chose phrase: "popularly defined".

I did not overlook it. Open a dictionary and you will see how the word is popularly defined.

> Of course,
> SQL and Sybase, etc, are RDBMS's based upon Codd's rules and Date has
> completely disavowed it.

SQL fails 1NF and the information rule.

> However, when most people refer to an RDBMS,
> they assume that you mean Oracle or SQL Server.

Widespread ignorance is still ignorance.

> It is extremely
> unlikely that your protests against products that have billions of
> dollars in R&D, mindshare, and marketing, will do much good.

I tilt at windmills--it's a character defect. However, I probably measure success differently from you.

> I think
> that instead of stubbornly fighting an unwinnable fight to mold public
> opinion (which you've already said that theorists don't have to do),

Boy, oh boy, you are confused. What the hell makes you think I am a theorist?

> then, perhaps instead call your "relational" thing something else.

Just to suit an ignorant salesman who insists on misusing precise terminology in a theory newsgroup?!? Thanks, I haven't had a good belly laugh in a while.

> So
> that in the very least you can create a distinction in people's minds
> that there is actually something better or could be better (if
> implimented) than SQL Server and Oracle and MYSQL!

You won't do that by confusing them with idiosynchratic definitions of words.

> You don't have the right to decide the meanings of words if you say
> your job is not to communicate!

You are an imbecile. I have never said that I don't communicate.

> If the job of a theorist is not to communicate,

You are an imbecile. Nobody said that theorists don't communicate. I only said one must meet them half-way. Duh!

> then, isn't it right
> for the marketers, whose job it is to communicate, to capriciously
> rename words invented by the theorist?

You can choose to refuse to communicate as you have been refusing. However, don't expect anyone to laud your refusal.

I disagree that it is a marketer's job to communicate. It is a marketer's job to promote, which is not quite the same thing as to communicate.

> Should not the theorist
> reasonably expect that if mass communication is not in his field that
> the public meaning of a phrase is not under his control

Open a dictionary, imbecile.

> > > Relational Database: A theoretical construct.
> >
> > A relational database is a very real logical construct. It is
theoretical in
> > the sense of relating to or being based on theory, but it is not
theoretical
> > in the sense of being speculative or hypothetical or in the sense of
being
> > not practical.
>
> I agree. My use of the word "theoretical" was to make the distinction
> that it defines how something should be made, as opposed to being an
> implementation itself.

Apparently, you lack any ability to comprehend english. So much for communication. Received on Fri Jun 20 2003 - 07:42:42 CEST