QRe: foundations of relational theory? - some references for the truly starving

"SixFtWabbit" <dragoninbabylon_at_cox.net> wrote in message news:zeGlb.66922$La.7139_at_fed1read02...
> Ah, an intelligent, thoughtful, completely unbiased and logical response.

The response was thoroughly biased for very good and rational reasons, but I can find no other flaws in your observation.

[facetious ignorance snipped]

> As for me, I work in and was formally and practically educated in both
> worlds and see the pros and cons of both approaches.

Then I can only conclude your challenges relate to intelligence.

> I also have the
> opportunity to work with many intelligent and street-smart business men
who
> only value an application solution by the bottom line... does it do the
job

By what criteria? Given the frequency with which pickies assume an AQL query asks one question when it actually asks another, I have little confidence in their ability to do the job even when they give the appearance of it. How do these street-smart business men verify the the application does the job?

> Pickies are NOT theorists.

Neither are they particularly educated or intelligent. Frankly, I have concluded that uncritical pick use actually damages minds much the same way uncritical Cobol use does.

> They are business application specialists. It's
> as scientific as social science. But, we all make a nice living.

As they say, there is one born every minute.

> Please.. this can be an enlightening and fruitful discussion...

With a pick advocate? I doubt it. Of course, just because I have never encountered an intelligent, educated pickie doesn't mean none exist. However, I suspect an intelligent, educated pickie would just agree with me in any case.

> If it can't
> be, it's time to agree that we disagree and call it quits.

Sure. I just added you to my twit filter with all the other pick idiots. Don't know why I didn't do it sooner. You have my apologies.

> Anyway, I have better things (make $$$) to do.

I have better things (enjoy my retirement) to do too.

> I'm in the middle of modeling
> a server-based application business rule class that can be easily deployed
> as JAVA, C#, PGP, etc. objects.

If you want to re-invent basic functionality provided by a real dbms, knock yourself out. I'm in the middle of training my puppy who just happens to be the sweetest dog I have ever met. While that observation may also reflect some bias, I am not alone in this observation either: Others have remarked on her sweet personality.

> I'm using the jBase jEDI layer to talk to a
> heterogeneous data base environment of MV/Pick, SQL Server, and DB2 back
end
> db servers. (ORACLE too once I buy a new server just for it.)

I'm using the methods documented by the Monks of New Skete combined with the methods taught at the local obedience school.

> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:pq6cna66D_8btwqiU-KYhA_at_golden.net...
> > "SixFtWabbit" <dragoninbabylon_at_cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:9uElb.66911$La.44306_at_fed1read02...
> > >
> > > Pick/MV/Whatever id NOT a relational database as defined
> > > scientifically/mathematically(all hard science IS Mathematics).
> >
> > Neither is pick even a database management system. It is a primitive
file
> > processor.
> >
> >
> > > It has no
> > > published theory of action or any rational document (non-marketing)
> > > describing its foundation. A few behavioral texts exist. But there is
> no
> > > available theoretical treatment.
> > >
> > > However, it was devised by mathematicians and computer scientists in
the
> > > pre-relational world to handle a complex, practical, real-world
> inventory
> > > control problem (Cheyenne helicopter manufacturing) and its
development
> > was
> > > financed by the US Government as a contract to TRW.
> >
> > Are you suggesting the US Government generally produces good things
under
> > contract to TRW? Doesn't that combination define waste and inefficiency?
> > Weren't they Proxmire's favourite whipping boy? Or does my memory not
> serve
> > me well?
> >
> >
> > > (see GIM - General
> > > Information Management - work titled GIRLS General Information
Retrieval
> > > Language.) Since it resides in the Public Domain, all related
material
> > > should be available.
> > >
> > > Be that as it may, what was created was an integrated data
> > base/operational
> > > environment which made it very easy for smart, non-technical
businessmen
> > to
> > > create sophisticated applications to manage their BUSINESS, a highly
> > > unscientific world.
> >
> > When you say "integrated data base/operational environment", if you mean
> > "primitive file processor", then your description is accurate if wordy.
If
> > you mean anything else, then the wordy description is not even accurate.
> >
> >
> > > This goes far beyond accounting into manufacturing,
> > > MRP, automated dispatch, insurance policy management, medical billing
> and
> > > the like.
> >
> > People have gone to heroic efforts to use primitive file processors in
> just
> > about every field of endeavour.
> >
> >
> > > Most of these applications (not small either- many in with
> > > thousands of online users) were designed, coded and implemented by
> people
> > > who understood and worked in these businesses first, and learned how
to
> > > "program" as a means to an end.
> >
> > In other words, they were coded by people who were generally ignorant of
> the
> > craft and who had absolutely no objective basis upon which to base their
> > conclusions regarding quality. That fits with empirical evidence.
> >
> >
> > > The query language (originally marketed as ENGLISH) uses SQL
structures
> > for
> >
> > Huh? How could it use anything that had not even been invented yet?
> >
> >
> > > Relationships are based on proximity and virtual links- not relational
> > > algebra.
> >
> > You apparently lack good diction with respect to database management. By
> > relationship, do you mean "reference", "pointer" or "relation"?
> >
> >
> > > Hence, most developers in the Pick world are not Data Base designers
> > per-se.
> > > They are application designers. The application has always outweighed
> > data
> > > base theory. I am not judging whether this is good or bad
> >
> > Then you are abdicating your responsibility. It is decidedly bad. It was
> > obvious to data managers more than three decades ago that it was an
> > extremely bad idea to try to manage data within applications. It just
> > doesn't work well.
> >
> >
> > > I will close with an anecdote.
> >
> > [anecdote of ignorami substituting emotion for reason snipped]
> >
> >
> > > Can I here and Amen from the Pickies? (oops- too religious.)
> >
> > Actually, I would say it is exactly the right level of religiosity in
> > reference to Pick in particular.
> >
> >
>
> Received on Thu Oct 23 2003 - 04:31:23 CEST