Re: Relational Databases and Their Guts

"Todd Bandrowsky" <anakin_at_unitedsoftworks.com> wrote in message news:af3d9224.0306210622.464ea122_at_posting.google.com...
> > 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?

Create Table does not fail the information rule--SQL does. SQL does not require at least one candidate key for every table. SQL allows null markers. As a result, SQL does not represent all information as values in relations.

> > 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.

Producing a better product won't do me any good if the widespread ignorance in the marketplace prevents adequate demand from developing.

> > 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.

Your goals are diametrically opposed to better systems. Your product idea regresses to a situation we abandoned as ineffective more than three decades ago. We abandoned application specific databases for systems that manage data for all applications. Any competent programmer knows what syntax is. The meaning of words is semantic not syntactic.

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

I communicate with those who are willing to communicate. Those, such as yourself, who insist on using their own idiosynchratic definitions of words refuse to communicate.

As I said, you are an imbecile. Received on Sun Jun 22 2003 - 06:10:14 CEST