Re: Ah, but who has better parties?

"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:o6-dna0y4cqBQTndRVn-uw_at_comcast.com...
>
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> news:c81cqm$k4v$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > Emperical data to prove that such things as 1NF are good for us (the
> > software development industry and our users) seems to me to be the
> > responsible thing for us (as an industry) to collect before we go and
> stick
> > it to the world with implementations of untested theories.
>
> This is where your anecdotes and mine differ.
>
> In addition to having seen a lot of disastrous databases, I've seen quite
a
> few databases that were well conceived, well designed and well
implemented.
> These are databases that, I guess would be called SQL databases in this
> forum, but the actual impementation was in a proprietary language that
> preceded the adoption of SQL in that particular environment.

It didn't start with SQL but is in 1NF? Just curious.

> My anecdotal experience strongly suggests to me that the difference
between
> a well built SQL database and a poorly built one is much greater than the
> differences that you've outlined between one data model and another.
>
> That's not to say that there aren't real differences between data models,
> but I don't think that's the reason one group throws better parties and
the
> other.
>
> And, by the way, a database, and its the applications it works with, a
> very much like a seven year permanent party, in terms of how the people
> relate to each other. The bad ones are like bad parties, ones that you
> wish you were not at. The good ones are like good parties, ones that
you
> hate to see end. It's about the people, not the theory.

Yes indeed. --dawn Received on Fri May 14 2004 - 10:02:28 CDT