Re: Peter Chen and Charles Bachman

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote:

>"Gene Wirchenko" <genew_at_mail.ocis.net> wrote in message

[snip]

>> I thought PICK was based on the CODASYL way. If not, what is the
>> differentiation please?

[snipped explanation]

     Thank you.

>> >I don't know what people who don't like ERD's do for analysis. When I
>first
>> >joined this forum, there was a lively debate between the OO enthusiasts
>and
>> >the regulars about the subject of subject matter expertise. The
>prevailing
>> >opinion among the OO enthusiasts seemed to be that there wasn't time for
>the
>> >implementors to learn the subject matter, so the best thing to do was to
>> >design data structures that were subject matter independent.
>>
>> An old saying: "There's never time to do it right, but there's
>> always time to do it over." OOP is great, but so is cheddar cheese.
>> I use each as appropriate.
>
>But only sharp cheddar -- life is too short to eat mild cheddar or milk
>chocolate, but that would (also) be a matter of taste ;-)
>
>> >That's even farther from my way of thinking than your way of thinking is.
>>
>> Having just gotten back to this group, I have reading the last
>> month or so in the last few days. Given the current iteration in the
>> neverending battle between Good and Evil (relational/SQL vs. PICK (or
>> the reverse if that suits your biases), I have an overdose of PICKism.
>> Thank goodness that Dawn finds "post-relational" being as stupid a
>> term for PICK as most of us do. (If the first thing that someone
>> tells me about Their Way is a lie, it does something for their
>> credibility, something very bad.)
>
>Sorry for the overdoes of PICKishness, Gene (and glad I didn't ruin my
>credibility by using clearly-errant terms like "post-relational"). The
>comments about PICK are more about "NOT RELATIONAL" or "not only
>relational", but I have found that using PICK as the example is better than
>using an even more emotion-inducing example such as "XML" or worse yet "XML
>Database."

     I am just graduating from a computing diploma program--I get my final course grade tomorrow--and in one of my courses, XML was inflicted on me. XML databases were mentioned. Why is it that every new thing has to be applied to everything else even when it does not fit? Presentation does not equal storage.

>I might sound like an old lady stuck in some old technology, but I dont'
>think that's the whole of it -- I'm just trying to figure out why in the
>world we still teach relational theory (as it relates todata) as if it were
>TRUTH and don't teach other approaches that yield high productivity for
>companies (such as, you guessed it, PICK). Once my book learning and
>experience align better, I'll be at peace (well, only after the industry
>starts moving faster in directions I think more effective). smiles. --dawn

     I think that relational is more sophisticated than PICK, but I recognise that that comes at a cost which might not be necessary in some cases. My suspicion is that PICK does well in an environment where the database schema is fairly stable, but this is a guess.

     If it works, it works. This is from my sig collection: 'legacy (adj) - A pejorative term used in the computer industry meaning "it works."'

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.