Re: Date's First Great Blunder

From: Laconic2 <>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:36:26 -0400
Message-ID: <>

> I care naught for code size. In the 80's when I had COBOL programmers
> working for me (and was one myself),


If you managed COBOL programmers in the 1980s, but never heard of the hierarchical or network data models, except as "marketing for the relational model", then you have led a sheltered existence, indeed.

Ever hear of IMS? It was built on the hierarchical model of data. Ever hear of IDMS (not IDMS/R)? It was built on the network model of data. These are just two examples. Any COBOL shop that had some exposure to the prerelational COBOL/DBMS world had some exposure to one of these models of data.

As far as comparisons between data models go, Codd's work in the early 1970's was proposing a new data model. To propose a new data model, without comparing it to existing data models, would have been irresponsible. Codd made the comparison. If you want to dismiss Codd's work as "marketing hype", well, who am I to argue?

As far as "an RDBMS has never been built", I agree with you. That's not a useful position to take. No one has ever built a triangle either. But my kindergarten teacher had an approximate triangle that she held up in class, and said "This is a triangle". Close enough. Received on Mon Apr 19 2004 - 15:36:26 CEST

Original text of this message