Re: Data Display & Modeling
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 13:01:27 +0200
Message-ID: <409e0f8b$0$564$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Laconic2 wrote:
> I would strongly argue (and this is from the trenches) that problem of less
> than full adherence to the relational model is not the largest problem in
> the practical world of what you might call SQL databases. (I'm still
> looking for another term. How about "tabular databases"?).
Sounds ok to me. Would relation valued attributes fit into that? I think so. Would compound attributes fit in a tabular database? ISTM fixed visible structures would, but lists would not. What is your take on this?
> Most of the
> trash databases I have seen resulted from the actions of database designers
> with almost no formal training in db design, and much of that training ill
> directed.
[snip excellent list]
> In short, the programming language BASIC made it so simple that any idiot
> could write a program. And SQL did the same thing for creating databases.
> And that's what happened!
:-) Received on Sun May 09 2004 - 13:01:27 CEST