Re: Peter Chen and Charles Bachman

"Gene Wirchenko" <genew_at_mail.ocis.net> wrote in message news:beti9099c1it2h3jsv8941hstn8fl9gf14_at_4ax.com...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote:
>
> >"Gene Wirchenko" <genew_at_mail.ocis.net> wrote in message
>
> [snip]
> 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.

Relational theory is much more sophisticated than PICK theory (which is largely in the minds of the practitioners, or not), but PICK seems to yield a better bang for the buck (an unproven observation from me and others who have seen both worlds).

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

Excellent! I don't know how "legacy" got to be a bad word in our industry. I tell people that PICK is a legacy database, but that it is an earned legacy. --dawn Received on Thu May 06 2004 - 19:38:47 CEST