Re: Defending the network model (was: Re: Relational Databases and Their Guts)

"Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message news:bd7g53$1ahe$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com...
> "Carl Rosenberger" <carl_at_db4o.com> wrote in message
> news:bd7d5m$jaj$01$1_at_news.t-online.com...
> > Bob Badour wrote:
> > > The network model raises the bar on suckiness.
> >
> > What's "suckiness"?
> >
> > I fully agree that the power of the Java language model appears
> [snip]
>
> What's Java?

LOL Try to stick to precise terminology in a theory newsgroup, and these marketing assholes and snake-oil salesmen jump all over a guy for being 'too rigid' and 'ignoring the market' yada, yada, yada and other such nonsense. Throw in a few colloquialisms to make the message more accessible, and these marketing assholes and snake-oil salesmen jump all over a guy for using ill-defined terminology. Sheesh!

What can one conclude other than they are just assholes who are trying to interfere with real communication?

Certainly, Carl is not willing to apply his own brain or any of the rules of english grammar to the task of communication. Anyone who knows a little about conjugation and declension knows one derives an adjective by tacking the "y" suffix onto a regular intransitive verb. A six-year-old who cannot even pronounce conjugation and declension knows how to invent adjectives from regular intransitive verbs.

"SQL sucks" becomes "SQL is sucky". Further, the network model is more sucky, and application-specific data models are more sucky still.

Even the six-year-old knows one turns an adjective into a relatively quantifiable noun by tacking on the "ness" suffix even if the six-year-old cannot yet spell, will never hear the term 'trisyllabic laxing' in his entire life, and hence does not yet know the spelling rules for combining suffixes.

"SQL is sucky" becomes "SQL has some suckiness, the network model has a lot more suckiness and application-specific data models have a great deal of suckiness indeed."

We english folks get all these words almost for free just by having one regular intransitive verb "to suck" meaning "To be disgustingly disagreeable or offensive." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sucks

"What the hell does this have to do with databases?", one might ask. A guy might be tempted to say "Absolutely nothing" except that just as english has 1. parts of speech one combines to form sentences, 2. rules allowing one to convert among the parts of speech and 3. rules allowing one to transform sentences to derive new sentences, the relational model has 1. data types one combines to form sentences, 2. operations allowing one to convert among the data types and 3. operations allowing one to transform sentences to derive new sentences.

Just as we english speaking people get a lot from our language almost for free, we database folks get a lot from the relational model almost for free.

Fearlessly stepping outside the realm of database theory and into the realm of armchair psychology for a moment: I say "almost for free" because one must bring something to the table. In addition to some knowledge of the rules, one must bring a playful imagination, an appreciation for the importance of rules, and a little inventiveness to the table--attributes every six-year-old has that these marketing assholes and snake-oil salesmen seem totally to lack. I have noticed they often join in projecting their deficiency onto others, and these sometimes curious unions might give the uninformed the illusion of consensus. It's clear they won't restrict their posts to sincere attempts to communicate, because confusion and misinformation are key to their success at marketing or sales. I see no way to solve the problem without violating the integrity of an open forum, but strictly as a performance optimization I add them to the twit-filter of my newsreader. Off armchair.

Cheers,
Bob Received on Mon Jun 23 2003 - 22:22:08 CEST