Re: Date's "First Great Blunder"

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 06:51:21 -0500
Message-ID: <c5j8kb$28m$>

If I put Date's terminology of "First Great Blunder" in quotes is that better? I've read his treatment and name of this opinion of his in multiple places, so I thought it might be recognizable. Keeping the quotes off just made me smile, so I thought it might make others smile too. Cheers! --dawn

"mAsterdam" <> wrote in message news:407d025e$0$559$
> Being the champion at topic-raising comes with a responsability.
> I don't like the title. While I don't like object bashing,
> person-bashing is no improvement. So for the next thread:
> Your content deserves better subject lines. Please?
> Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:
> > C. J. Date has written about what he calls "The First Great Blunder"
> > to this question: What concept is it in the relational world that is
> > counterpart to the concept of object class in the object world?
> The complementing question would be: What concept is it in the object
> world that is the counterpart to the concept of relation in the
> relational world?
> That is, *if* these two worlds are separable. Are they?
> If they are, are they the only ones or are there more worlds?
> Hm... the subject line bothers me more than I thought. But I won't
> s/te/wn/
> So only 2 Eurocents for now.
> Later. :-/
Received on Wed Apr 14 2004 - 13:51:21 CEST

Original text of this message