Re: What predicates the following relation represents

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message news:<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)

twink is not a complement.

>
> > 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"

the mv/java twinks don't have logic on their side. methinks thou protest a bit too much.

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.

because the twinks never took a database course, or read date, and don't want to build data independent systems. in the olde days (before java), the definition of Object included control of itself. the relational model already does that for data. the twinks don't want to admit that, since all they're doing is pasting an extra layer, and isolating the data to their application. it's chauvinism, pure and simple. and xml is NOT self describing, by the bye.

 Is it only because people who disagree
> with you are stupid?

no. just the ones, in this context, who refuse to acknowledge that the relational model offers what none of the proffered alternatives do: if you build to 3NF (or higher), the database guarantees that the data will remain consistent and concurrent IN SPITE of dumbass users and knucklhead coders. there is an infinite supply of both.

 What is it that is missing in relational theory that
> others see as important?

nothing.

 --dawn Received on Fri May 07 2004 - 14:11:18 CEST