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

On Wed, 19 May 2004 08:41:44 GMT, "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:

>The theory needs to address current technology.

No!

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

What is an application data object?

A value with an user defined type?

The Relational Model allows it, of course.

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

Is you who have to give reasons, and I don't see them.

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

What are these trends?

It is hard to know what you are talking about.

>And as I have pointed out before, the current data management
>theory is not modern, it is decades old.

So what?

35 years is nothing in the millenary history of data management, and there is nothing that migth compete with The Relational Model.

> It reflects a practice
>that went out of date 25 years ago.

To use math as the foundation of data management?

>> 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.

Astonishing!

A theory has to evolve to benefit from flawed implementations of it!

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

The Relational Model allows procedures. What's the problem?

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

It is out of question since thousands of years ago.

>> What don't you like in such division?
>
>It is out of date.

Like Archimedes' principle.

Regards
  Alfredo Received on Wed May 19 2004 - 13:16:31 CEST