Re: What predicates the following relation represents
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:04:36 -0500
Message-ID: <c7dunq$q6k$1_at_news.netins.net>
"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.
>
> 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.
Would that be your rigorous proof of what you state as a fact or would this be an opinion? (I hope "twink" is a complement since I'm certain "stupid" is not)
> 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.
No, it really doesn't -- not even close. Occasional emotional outbursts from relational proponents and replacing solid logic with "you are stupid if you disagree with me" type of responses are understandable when your belief system is being questioned, but it wouldn't hurt to think a little more about why Java and XML even exist. Is it only because people who disagree with you are stupid? What is it that is missing in relational theory that others see as important? --dawn Received on Thu May 06 2004 - 20:04:36 CEST