Re: The fable of DEMETRIUS, CONSTRAINTICUS, and AUTOMATICUS

Marshall Spight wrote:

> "Kenneth Downs" <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net> wrote in message
> news:b2f3lc.8t6.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net...

>>
>> Laconic2's reply with Marshall's reply to that actually gives the insight
>> better than I have:  you want to provide the constraints structurally.
>>
>> I'll do the details here.
>>
>> CASE 1: CONSTRAINT SALARY <= 100,000 (from your other post).
>>
>> All discreet finite range constraints can be converted to RI by having a
>> table of allowed values.  Salary codes with dollar values (or direct
>> salary values in a table).
>>
>> Some will knee-jerk react against the idea of a table with 100,000 rows,
>> but of course that is silly, we only enter the ones we are going to use.

The question would then become, how do you control the definition of the set? Can the user modify it? Can we declare a set as having a range of values from a table controlled by a user?

>
>

>> Advantage 1:  With a constraint, policy changes require a programmer. 
>> Now
>> you are truly Constrainticus, preventing things from getting done.  If
>> the salary values are in a table, policy changes can be implemented as
>> soon as
>> they are authorized, the top dog goes in and types it in.  Keeping to the
>> Greek philosophy idiom, this is much more virtuous, i.e, it conforms to
>> The Good.

Hmmmm. Let's define:

$(DDL) = Expense required to use DDL
$(USR) = Expense required to have user make change.

If I understand your statement, it is that

$(DDL)(Declarative) << $(DDL)(Procedural)

My claim is that this is only true if you are a programmer, if you are a user then:

$(USR) << $(DDL) for all values of $(USR) and $(DDL)

Hence, any time that you can put something in the user's control through direct data maintenance, it is a Good Thing.

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me