Re: What predicates the following relation represents
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 19:18:42 +0300
Message-ID: <409a64a2_at_post.usenet.com>
"robert" <gnuoytr_at_rcn.com> wrote in message
news:da3c2186.0405060759.5f17fbf9_at_posting.google.com...
> pbrazier_at_cosmos-uk.co.uk (Paul) wrote in message
news:<51d64140.0404070044.487ccbc6_at_posting.google.com>...
> > "Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message
news:<c4u8li$106q$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com>...
>
> <snip>
> > OK I think you understand what I'm saying but I think some others in
> > the thread maybe don't. I'm in agreement with Date that saying
> > something twice doesn't make it any truer. What I'm also saying is
> > that saying something twice doesn't make it wrong.
> <snip>
>
> of course it makes it wrong; unless, of course, you're treating each
> table like a VSAM/COBOL flat file. as soon as you join to this table
> (and if you're phobic about joins, find another line of work), you
> get wrong results. unless you write explicit code to deal with
> duplicates, etc.
Could you give a counterexample ?
> unfortunately, the MV/XML/java twinks are pounding the drum these days.
> Dr. Codd gave us Data Independence with the RM. the twinks are
> sending us back to the days of COBOL/VSAM, where the only way to
> comprehend the data is through the application code. that is STUPID.
And we refused to this day to take full advantage of "data independence" :-)
> sorry for the yell, but there is clearly a regression in thought the
> last few years. do a search on FOLDOC with 'network database'.
> read the answer. it says it all.
It isn't CLEARLY a regression. It's more like a lack of progress.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=