Re: data & code
From: mountain man <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 11:05:35 GMT
Message-ID: <3Yjtc.13281$L.2760_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> >
> >
> > "mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message
> > news:40b51e92$0$37789$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> > > x wrote:
> > > > Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> > > >>Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:
> > > >>>I'm really curious what the huge distinction is (as
> > > >>>in "totally different").
> > > >>
> > > >>They have nothing in common.
> > > >>
> > > >>>Much of the data that I see queried is derived.
> > > >>
> > > >>And code is a way to specify the derivation rules.
> > > >>It has nothing to do with data.
> > > >
> > > > How do you call this:
> > > > 31 c0 b9 10 00 40 01 c0 49 e3 fb
> > >
> > > I don't know what Alfredo would call it.
> > > I'ld call it a meaningless string of characters.
> > >
> > > It looks somewhat like a part of hexdump,
> > > and I might (if I were in another mood) even try
> > > to ASCII or EBCDIC decode it under that assumption.
> > > It might make sense in some language (probably english
> > > or some programming language in this context).
> > >
> > > As it is, it is neither code nor data.
> > >
> > > glossary - code
> > > glossary - data
> > >
> > > Some (e.g. prolog) don't care about the difference.
> > > Some (e.g. NIAM/ORM) don't care about what they have in common.
> > >
> > > Does anybody dare to try to give some
> > > reasonably acceptable descriptions?
> >
> > Citation from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_program
> >
> > Some speakers distinguish between data that describes a computer program
> > data that does not describe a computer program; the former is called a
> > "program", and the latter "data". However, this distinction between
> > "program" and "data" is difficult to describe precisely, since all data
> > be regarded as implementing a program, depending on how it is processed.
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 11:05:35 GMT
Message-ID: <3Yjtc.13281$L.2760_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message news:c94fck$sls$1_at_news.netins.net...
> "x" <x-false_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:40b5a87c_at_post.usenet.com...
> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> >
> >
> > "mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message
> > news:40b51e92$0$37789$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> > > x wrote:
> > > > Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> > > >>Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:
> > > >>>I'm really curious what the huge distinction is (as
> > > >>>in "totally different").
> > > >>
> > > >>They have nothing in common.
> > > >>
> > > >>>Much of the data that I see queried is derived.
> > > >>
> > > >>And code is a way to specify the derivation rules.
> > > >>It has nothing to do with data.
> > > >
> > > > How do you call this:
> > > > 31 c0 b9 10 00 40 01 c0 49 e3 fb
> > >
> > > I don't know what Alfredo would call it.
> > > I'ld call it a meaningless string of characters.
> > >
> > > It looks somewhat like a part of hexdump,
> > > and I might (if I were in another mood) even try
> > > to ASCII or EBCDIC decode it under that assumption.
> > > It might make sense in some language (probably english
> > > or some programming language in this context).
> > >
> > > As it is, it is neither code nor data.
> > >
> > > glossary - code
> > > glossary - data
> > >
> > > Some (e.g. prolog) don't care about the difference.
> > > Some (e.g. NIAM/ORM) don't care about what they have in common.
> > >
> > > Does anybody dare to try to give some
> > > reasonably acceptable descriptions?
> >
> > Citation from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_program
> >
> > Some speakers distinguish between data that describes a computer program
> and
> > data that does not describe a computer program; the former is called a
> > "program", and the latter "data". However, this distinction between
> > "program" and "data" is difficult to describe precisely, since all data
> can
> > be regarded as implementing a program, depending on how it is processed.
> > Very good. So, mountain man's "Organizational Intelligence" is the set of > all data?
That's more or less it Dawn, because in the end, like ying and yang it continually instantiates itself in either the code or the data, or in the mandatory coordination tasks in managing the mappings across software layers (specifically between E2[rdbms] and E3[apps]).
Unless one countenances the whole (being more than just the data *and/or* the code) then one cannot ever hope to compehend a theoretical completeness using *2004* RDBMS technology.
An interesting consequential tangentiation, thanks x. Best wishes,
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au
Received on Thu May 27 2004 - 13:05:35 CEST