Re: So let me get this right: (Was: NFNF vs 1NF ...)

"DBMS_Plumber" <paul_geoffrey_brown_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1108000345.920684.68440_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Codd said (something like) "relational valued (ie. non-atomic) values
> in attributes not OK"
> Date et. al. said: "Relational value attributes OK."
>
> Codd said (something like) "NULLs OK"
> Date et. al said: "$_at_#^ ^$^$%@ 7$%%^ with yer $%#@$%kin' NULLs!"
>
> Early Systems Builders Said: "Hey! Bag data model makes runtime more
> efficient an' we got a consistent algebra for bags."
> Date et al. said "$%_at_#%kin' Bags! Are you morons? Pharg! Uneducated
> rabble!"
>
> Object-Relational Systems Builders said: "Hmm. We can support
> user-defined types without them needing order."
> Date et. al. said "When you define a domain, you gotta define order!"
>
> Date et. al. said: "The relational model needs no extension, no
> correction, no subsumption, and above all no perversion."
>
> Wierd how Date et. al. haven't seen an extension or correction that
> they actually liked, except for the ones they dreamed up themselves.
> Yet all of their ideas (which do place outside the mainstream) are just
> fineandandythankyouverymuch.

Why, Mr. Plumber ... you make this Character et. al. sound downright arrogant! Surely this is not the case, is it? smiles. --dawn Received on Thu Feb 10 2005 - 03:26:17 CET