Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL

Bob Badour wrote:

>"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...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>
OK, but playing the devils advocate, how can you be so sure that it would

• scale
• be manageable
• adapt to all situations
• not to talk about being able to educate programmers to the new approach

Say if you had a large insurance company with, say, 10000 rules, would it *really* work?

regards,
Lauri Pietarinen Received on Sun Oct 19 2003 - 10:03:17 CEST