Re: Date is Incomplete - database application software and database theory

From: mountain man <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 08:41:44 GMT
Message-ID: <c5Fqc.47229$TT.28428_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>


"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:40a9e021.715949_at_news.tehnicom.net...
> On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:56:53 GMT, "mountain man"
> <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
>
> >> Applications depend on the data management approach
> >> but the contrary is not true.
> >
> >The modern database systems management paradigm turns
> >a blind eye to the applications environment
>
> As it should be. Theory should not be limited by the current
> technology. Theory is the basis for future technology.

The theory needs to address current technology. Current technology allows application data objects, in fact promotes these, but the RM theory does not address this.

Current technology is the stepping stone to future technology.

> >> The application's development world failed in its adaptation to the
> >> modern data management "paradigm. That's all.
> >
> >It's easy to point a finger in the other direction, but in
> >the final analysis examination of contributing causes to
> >the current state of the nation includes the "paradigm"
> >and its incompleteness.
>
> Only in your personal analysis, and I am afraid it is very wrong.

Well I have not yet received any form of logical reason why the analysis is wrong, so I am unlikely to alter it.

> >Database systems theory has not evolved to benefit from
> >the management now available through modern database
> >systems.
>
> ???
>
> To benefit from what?
>
> Modern database systems are the SQL DBMSs. A bastardized
> implementation of modern data management theory.

Your opinion does not reflect the increasing trends of investment in these machines since 1979.

And as I have pointed out before, the current data management theory is not modern, it is decades old. It reflects a practice that went out of date 25 years ago.

> It does not make any sense to say that data management theory has not
> evolved to benefit from the poor management now avaiable through
> bastardized implementations of such theory.

See above. It makes perfect sense.

> >It expresses a 1970's database/application
> >dichotomy
>
> 1960's and it is DBMS not database.

Whatever.

> >, which is unwholesome and unwarranted
> >and totally and completely unrealistic to the facts of
> >operation, administration and management of database
> >systems today.
>
> Nonsenses. The division between applications and DBMS's is a perfecty
> valid principle now.

This assertion fails to understand the nature of RDBMS stored procedures: application system components totally defined within the RDBMS.

> It is as valid as the ancient "divide and
> conquer" principle, and a derivation of it.

Yeah, it is barbaric.

> What don't you like in such division?

It is out of date.

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au/software/history Received on Wed May 19 2004 - 10:41:44 CEST

Original text of this message