Re: funny article

From: Gene Wirchenko <>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:40:05 -0800
Message-ID: <>

"erk" <> wrote:

>Dawn wrote:
>> And now "graph DBMS's" can solve the problems of RDBMS. Interesting
>> perhaps there wasn't a problem in the previous data models, just in
>> implementations (sound familiar?)
>Could certainly be; since this industry tends to attract way too many
>boys in search of "cool" toys, implementations tend to dominate the
>industry much more than others. Pascal posted a nonsensical bit of crap
>from someone at a university - it's at , but it culminates in "There is
>no difference between telling a physician to give Xeloda for breast
>cancer and telling a software engineer to apply Real Application
>Clusters for high availability: Both are product specific solutions to
>technical problems."
>Bollocks. My doctor BETTER know his theories (forged by observation and
>trial-and-error, but not predicated on particular experiments), or I
>don't care how well he/she knows Xeloda.

     Just to make it clear, erk and Pascal say about the same about this. I believe this (the university teacher) was the twit who said that he did not allow PowerPoint presentations. (Not that PowerPoint presentations would have to have technical strength and not just fancy presentation, but that PowerPoint presentations were not allowed at all. Rather silly.)


[Gene Wirchenko:]

>> > Good theory can be *extremely* practical.
>> Yup, it CAN be! I definitely agree. Blind adherence to flawed theory
>> not practical, however.
>Yup. I'll cheerfully dump RM for something better, but have yet to see
>it amidst the XML wasteland.

     Similarly, I am not interested in what will happen for theory. I am interested in the theory here and now. It is fine to say that you will come up with something better (than RM or whatever), but I am sticking with what I have until that new theory actually exists and it is shown sound. Handwaving will not cut it.


Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.
Received on Thu Dec 09 2004 - 20:40:05 CET

Original text of this message