Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL

"Lauri Pietarinen" <lauri.pietarinen_at_atbusiness.com> wrote in message news:bms3b2$lbr$1_at_nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
> >"Lauri Pietarinen" <lauri.pietarinen_at_atbusiness.com> wrote in message
> >news:bmrccu$uur$1_at_nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> >
> >>Bob Badour wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Lauri Pietarinen" <lauri.pietarinen_at_atbusiness.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:e9d83568.0310180135.34595a3d_at_posting.google.com...
> >>>
> >>>>So my guess why many programmers dislike SQL (and hence, databases) is
> >>>>that they have to deal with two different paradigms.
> >>>>
> >>>If by "paradigm" you mean: "A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and
> >>>practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community
> >>>
> >>>
> >that
> >
> >
> >>>shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline"
> >>>(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paradigm), then I suggest we
> >>>consider that programming and database management exist within a single
> >>>paradigm of computing.
> >>>
> >>>SQL does not exist within a separate paradigm so much as it represents
a
> >>>different computational model.
> >>>
> >>Well, however you want to call it. SQL (or relational) represents a
> >>different way of thinking.
> >
> >In my experience, effective programming requires exactly the same way of
> >thinking effective data management requires. For instance, to programme
> >effectively, one must start from "What do I want the computer to do?" and
> >then work toward "How do I get the computer to do it?"
> >
> Programmers that are taught to program (e.g. in universities) and know a
> lot of how to desing programs
> and do concurrent stuff etc don't necessarily understand the relational
> approach. They could be e.g. great
> game programmers, but when they start doing "commercial typ"
> applications it takes some educating and
> convincing that they understant how to merge Java with SQL so that each
> part does the job it knows
> best. They tend to design clean object oriented programs that just
> don't scale to larger environments
> because they use the database just as a "dumb" data store.

As I said, effective programmers...

> >>>>e end up with
> >>>>J2EE, where everyting becomes a bean of some kind and we hide simple
> >>>>SQL in the beans without leveraging the power of the DB. Guess what -
> >>>>we get performance problems!!
> >>>>
> >>>>Or we end up with programmers building their own DBMS'es so as to at
> >>>>least get an illusion of unification.
> >>>>
> >>>Ignorance, laziness and stupidity cause far worse problems, but
ignorance
> >>>tends to mask the problems to those most affected.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Now, the alternative COULD be to widen the domain of the DMBS.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Instead of widening the dbms, consider applying the dbms's
computational
> >>>model to a wider scope of problems.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Yes, thanks for clarifying. That's what I meant.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I observe that the ability to apply the dbms's computational model to a
> >wider scope of problems suggests a single paradigm.
> >
> It's just two different appoaches to building applications. At the
> moment we are stuck in a situation
> where we have to live in two (slightly incompatible) worlds to get the
> job done.
>
> The billion dollar question is: could we get everything done in one
> world only, the relational one?

Of course, we can. Received on Sun Oct 19 2003 - 04:43:40 CEST