Re: Relational Databases and Their Guts

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

Ok, so are you arguing that SQL Server is an RDMBS? You know that SQL Server is not an RDBMS because it is not relational!

> SQL fails 1NF and the information rule.

Exactly how does CREATE TABLE fail the information rule?

> Widespread ignorance is still ignorance.

True, but the decision to invest the considerable effort to correct the misuse of a word, instead of developing a product that actually does the "better" thing, seems silly. I mean, in my mind, it seems like it would be a hell of a lot easier to write a real RDBMS than it would be to change the use of a word by a pretty sizeable chunk of the IT sector.

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

I want systems to be better and I don't get tripped up on syntax to get there.

> 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.

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

You don't. You sit on your high horse and quibble over the definition of a word but don't really grasp its conceptual point. You can't deal with anything conceptually and you completely have no imagination, and you probably know it so you hide behind your dictionary all day throwing out periods and letters when you can't understand sentences. You are probably the worst kind of idiot: the syntactic rube, or, yet another tree guy that can't grasp forest. Received on Sat Jun 21 2003 - 16:22:38 CEST