Re: Date is Incomplete - database application software and database theory
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 14:57:15 GMT
Message-ID: <f1Moc.3533$NG4.3523_at_newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>
"mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:r%uoc.34936$TT.25791_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Yupoc.1153$Sf1.311_at_newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> > "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> > news:81moc.34371$TT.4146_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > My reading of Date allows me to assert his detailed
> > > coverage of the theoretical ground of database
> > > systems technology lacks any meaningful discussion
> > > of the (one would implicity assume exists) application
> > > system software which is to "inhabit" the system.
> > >
> > > This is radical incompleteness of theory.
So any discussion of computing has to discuss application software as well? I disagree completely; there are many, many disciplines in and around computer science that lend value without delving into applications.
> > > Are there any parties aware of any other authors
> > > who allow for the theoretical treatment of the inter-
> > > relationships between RDBMS software and the
> > > generic application system software level?
> >
> > Between the RDBMS software and the application software? Well, he offers
> > Tutorial D and its type system in Third Manifesto - that language is the
> > interface.
>
> Why have another language? Doesn't that suggest use
> of the first language is not implemented properly? ;-)
Tutorial D is one possibility; Date presents a relational calculus "version" as well. He's not proposing a language, for the most part - he uses it primarily to illustrate his models.
> > But I have to admit I'm somewhat confused by the phrase "generic
> application
> > system software level", which perhaps needs a few more qualifying nouns
> > and/or adjectives for clarity. :-)
>
> I dont know. My position is a generalist one.
>> 2. We have application software.
> 1. We have database software.
> 3. When are they ever used separately?
The database exists to implement applications, and in particular to conceptually unify the many different applications which tend to surround any meaningful data. But just because the one is used by the other doesn't mean they can't be discussed separately. Neither of the above discuss hardware, and don't we need hardware to run the software? What about electricity - doesn't electrical theory play into our computer systems? And mechanical engineering, of the hard drive and other components? Optics for the CD/DVD drives? Man is that theory every incomplete.
> 4. One would expect there to be in theory common ground.
True, but also a degree of separation. One hopes. The alternative is the Big Ball of Mud pattern.
> 5. The theory is incomplete.
Uh... perhaps, but not based on your argument above.
- erk