Re: foundations of relational theory?

Marshall Spight wrote:

>"cmurthi" <xyzcmurthi_at_quest.with.a.w.net> wrote in message news:3F9E7BFE.7050400@quest.with.a.w.net...
>
>
>>Perhaps
>>this can evolve to a discussion of priorities and strategies in
>>application development instead of purely theoretical niceties.
>>
>>
>
>I'm interested in practicalities, but I'm also interested in
>theory. The big reason I read c.d.t. is to further my interest
>in theory. When I'm at work, I'm Mr. Practical. When I'm
>home, reading newsgroups, I put my theory hat on. So
>I actually have a *cultural* bias against discussing practicalities
>while here. (Plus, I already get a steady diet of that.)
>
>Of course, the weird thing about crossposting is that "here"
>and "there" are the same place. This post goes to both, but
>I'm only subscribed to one. To me and other cdters, this
>is home base; to the cdpers, same thing. This kind of
>breaks a basic human interaction mechanism, which is
>that you be extra-polite when you're in someone else's
>home. We're each in the others' living room.
>
>I'm not sure who first brough c.d.t. and c.d.p. together; it
>was perhaps not the best fit of cultures!
>

I think this interaction has brought up many interesting and important aspects. The reason
I am interested in theory is that it will make my practice better. I don't believe in theory
for theorys sake. Through out history the best theorists have also excelled in practice
(I am thinking of Aristoteles, Newton, Gauss). The most interesting things come about
where theory meets practice. Even Codd in his work was very oriented towards practice.
For example there is no theoretical reason for mandating that columns have names and no order.
The reason for this is to make the database more *practical*.

regards,
Lauri Pietarinen Received on Tue Oct 28 2003 - 21:51:20 CET