Re: Ah, but who has better parties?

Em Mon, 17 May 2004 13:55:09 -0500, Dawn M. Wolthuis escreveu:

> Nope -- I believed it to be a true statement and still have no evidence
> that it is not.

        Then what I feared is true: you do not know how to think. To put it mildly, you never learned to philosophise, and thus your argumentation ends up in lying, if unwittingly.

        When you state truthfully to 'have no evidence', it is quite contrary to the formerly stated 'there is not really'. The first is an admission of ignorance, the second is a false statement. Now ignorance may be due to there being nothing there to know, but that is quite another story.

>> No, I am not aware of specific savings as in less dollars spent.  I
>> never cared for that, since it was simply not necessary. Going SQL --
>> which is still much more complicated than relational -- enabled us to do
>> much it wasn't simply possible before.

        Query data without programming.

        Changing data volumes, indexing etc without changing programs.

        Enabling end-user (layman) 'direct' access to data.

        Declarative programming.

        All the OLAP stuff, therefore, and more.

        And all this is just half-baked, over-complex SQL.

>> Kinda like PCs add no productivity, and may even hinder it. But we can't
>> just imagine life without one, or even better an X terminal.

        There is a saying in Portuguese, 'the fish dies by his own mouth'.

        1NF means, data structure is not hidden inside fields but is accessible in relations.

        Rigid constraint management means, no garbage out because no garbage in.

        Take these two, you're toast. Or better, you have the software crisis. That due to SQL having substituted the RM we never quite left.

>> Where I'm working we're finishing a retail and warehousing project for a
>> supermarket chain replacing their old xBase system, because that system
>> can't be data mined except by programming.

        Are you trying to prove besides not being able to think you are not able to read?

        The anedocte I told is not in any manner about industry standards. It is about technical capabilities inherent in general data models, in this case navigational (xBase) vs quasi- or sub-relational (SQL).

> In the absense of proof, anecdotes are useful. They are not proof,
> however.

        Indeed. Therefore your question is quite OT if well-meaning.

> I measure a lot outside of the dollar, but I'm using the dollar as metric
> that everyone understands. For example, I understand that many more
> dollars are being invested in SQL-DBMS's and I don't understand why.

        Because no one came up with a better alternative yet, besides a tiny Utah-based company with an yet immature product running in a substandard platform -- yes, that's Alphora Dataphor on MS.Net, and it is not meant as an indictment of the product but as an explanation of its apparent lack of impact yet.

> I understand that many more dollars are spent both short and long
> term in IT when heading from many of the legacy systems to
> SQL-DBMS-based applications, but perhaps the money is returned in
> the productivity of the company.

        Depends on what is the product of the company. Obvious, eh?

        Take my banking anedocte. We weren't improving the productivity of the bank. We were making things that weren't possible until then. People remained as productive as before, it was IT that was more productive -- but ours was not the bank's product -- and users that had better informed decisions.

> I think relational theory is elegant, but it is not self-evident that it
> is relevant to my work (information systems).

        It will not ever be evident, self-evident or otherwise to you until you understand it.

>> Certainly not... I do not possess neither wide, deep knowledge, nor
>> striking humbleness.  It is just that I don't like the particular
>> combination of not knowing something *and* pontificating about it.

        No, the problem ain't questioning. It is pontificating, and continued misunderstanding. You probably aren't able to realise, but your exchange you published with Pascal reflects badly on your powers of understanding.

>> Perhaps because we have been debating precisely an area where you have
>> problems understanding your limitations?

        I will promptly admit I lack social skills, and sometimes relish this lack. But I am not discussing myself.

>> Perhaps if we were discussing your hobbies instead of mine...

        C'mon, there must *something* were you are competent. Perhaps programming -- I'm a lousy programmer --, but data certainly ain't it.

>> Actually thirty.

        The impact of the RM began before a product existed. This is another thing business-blinded US people have a hard time understanding.

        Do you realise IBM's informal System R papers, bad as they were being SQL, was used by Larry Ellison to set up Oracle? While all the academic and standards work being done at the time is in the dustbin of History, Pick included.

        Now to qualify that, I know indeed Pick is live and kicking. But so is xBase, and sequential files at that. And that doesn't make them relevant anymore than Egypt still being quite a country makes them the world superpower they once was.

-- 
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra           +55 (11) 5685 2219
Av Sgto Geraldo Santana, 1100 6/71               +55 (11) 5686 9607
04.674-000  São Paulo, SP                                    BRASIL
http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/