Re: Date's First Great Blunder

From: Anthony W. Youngman <>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:29:31 +0100
Message-ID: <>

In message <>, Alfredo Novoa <> writes
>On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:48:06 -0500, "Dawn M. Wolthuis"
><> wrote:
>>> The vast majority of the OO coders reject the evident when it is
>>> against the dogma.
>>OO, like relational database theory, does have religious followers
>I disagree. Relational database theory is a branch of maths and OO is
>a set of fuzzy and contradictory guidelines that lacks any consensus.
>It is clear that the second is a lot more religious followers prone.

What's that quote?

"If religion is a belief in what is unprovable, then the only religion that can prove it is a religion is mathematics".

You state that relational database theory is a branch of mathematics. As such, what evidence do you have that it actually WORKS! Because if it's maths then the only proof you have is that it is *consistent*, and not that it is actually relevant to the real world.

"Relational theory is consistent. Academicians have an unfortunate tendency to confuse consistency with truth".

Newtonian Mechanics is mathematics. It's consistent. Unfortunately, it doesn't tally with reality :-(


Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999
Received on Thu Apr 15 2004 - 22:29:31 CEST

Original text of this message