Re: Ah, but who has better parties?
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 20:40:22 -0300
Message-ID: <pan.2004.05.17.23.40.22.638312_at_dutra.fastmail.fm>
Em Mon, 17 May 2004 17:15:02 -0500, Dawn M. Wolthuis escreveu:
> "Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra" <leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm>
> wrote in message news:pan.2004.05.17.20.40.33.462060_at_dutra.fastmail.fm...
>> 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.
>
> Are you suggesting that because relational theory is "tight" or elegant
> mathematically that is, therefore, proof of its applicability within the
> IT profession?
No, it is only a clear hint.
The proof is in the pudding. Now the pudding can be $$$ as you seem to want, or in example of how to do significant tasks. I propose the latter is better than the former, which is subject to interference to process and management problems. And as for the latter... do your homework.
> You are clearly missing my point, so I'm thinking I'm
> likely missing yours as well.
I guess it is useless to go to a 'you said, I said' argument, for you don't seem capable of text comprehension. But look at the above paragraphs, at the top of this message. You believed something to be true, but with no basis whatsoever as absence of proof ain't a refutation, and as your ignorance of proof is not a proof of its absence. You either knew or should have known that you had no basis whatsoever for that affirmation.
> That is not an outcome for the company, but a technique for the developer.
> I'm not a huge fan of declarative programming but I'm OK with it (which is
> my opinion re procedural, functional and OO programming as well -- they
> each have their charm).
So you miss a huge point.
> Oddly enough, with the use of functions and virtual fields, PICK systems
> end up incorporating real-time OLAP as well as being a decent platform for
> data analysis of snapshot data (without any need for redesigning to a star
> schema).
Who's mentioned star schemas?
Ah, and there is data independence too. This a huge one.
>> > Maybe similar, but I can certainly imagine things better related to >> > our software applications if we can move away from at least a few of >> > the features of today's SQL-DBMS's -- in particular, the 1NF and rigid >> > constraint management (not to mention SQL itself). >> >> There is a saying in Portuguese, 'the fish dies by his own mouth'.
>
> And then there is that story about how the emperor has no clothes.
Which is totally irrelevant here.
>> Rigid constraint management means, no garbage out because no garbage in.
>
> You are quite naive.
Again you have no grounds for that.
>> 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).
>
> I knew you would think that ;-)
But you disagree. Which proves you either can't read or can't write, or want to confuse things.
>> Indeed. Therefore your question is quite OT if well-meaning.
>
> Oh really? If there is a mathematical theory that we find does nothing to
> advance our use of databases when it is applied to database
> solutions
The RM is not simply Math. It is Math applied to a specific problem. It solves quite some problems quite elegantly.
> then that would be a relevant topic, right? So, how do we know that we
> have chosen a good model for our database solutions with the relational
> model? Not only should we be able to show that we are applying the theory
> properly, we ought to be able to show that applying such a theory is good
> for our our companies in some way, right?
Hey, the great debate is over. Go fetch the annals...
> My hypothesis is that there was a better alternative prior to the
> implementations, failed as they might be, of relational theory.
The burden of proof is on you. You might know there were better people than both of us making the same debate 30 years ago.
This is what is so tiresome about you uneducated US trolls. Your lack of knowledge includes an abismal Historical ignorance. As a former IBMer friend of mine said, in IBM only the present existed, for the past was obsolete and the future couldn't be talked about.
>> It will not ever be evident, self-evident or otherwise to you until you >> understand it.
>
> Which aspects do you think I do not understand?
Take closure. Take the relevance of 1NF. Take the separation of the physical and logical levels. Constraints.
> How do you know that? What is the criteria on which you base such a
> judgement. If a software developer were to work in data processing for a
> quarter of a century, but never work with relational databases and never
> study such (and that does not describe me, by the way), then would they
> necessarily be incompetent related to data?
Yes.
To compare, what about a physician that refused to understand 30 years of development on his field?
> And I sure wouldn't put any dollars into Oracle stock right now
> either.
Unfortunately I fear their downfall is in a similar scale as Microsoft's.
-- 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/Received on Tue May 18 2004 - 01:40:22 CEST