Re: the relational model of data objects *and* program objects

Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:45:47 GMT, "mountain man"
> <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
>
>>>The inexistence of relationships between the RM and the applications
>>>does not mean that the RM is useless for developing applications. It
>>>only means that it is not being used.
>>
>>I think that you would agree that it obviously should be used,
>>because of the downstream benefits, but it is not. Does this not
>>tell you something?
>
> Yes, that we live in a very imperfect world.

<philosopher-hat>
I prefer to think of it as entropy - often confusing to mere mortals but perfect nonetheless!
</philosopher-hat>
>
>>It tells me that the model - as it is currently
>>promulgated - is not viewed as being applicable to the task by
>>the people involved in conducting the task.
>
> The problem is that the people who know about application programming
> don't know about databases and vice-versa. Date and Pascal don't want
> to know anything about application programming, for instance.
>
I agree (as a certifiable Jack of all Trades) that is a lamentable truth.

<snip>
>
> Suppliers of development tools. RDBMS included.
> IMO an RDBMS should be a part of an integrated and coordinated
> Information System development tool set.
>
>>From your perspective of this role-type (yet to be defined
>>by yourself) you perceive no problem,
>
> I perceive a terrible problem: good development tools don't exist, and
> they are hard and expensive to develop.
>
Problem YES. Non-existent - Perhaps (my personal experience is too narrow at 20+ years to say). To develop - V.Hard and V.Expensive - for sure.
>
>>however I would
>>not hesitate to point out that the integration of database
>>and application software is a major problem for many
>>organisations (hence use of external consultants).
>
External consultants don't have any monopoly - I know because I is (sic) one! But they can be whacked (incented) by the blunt fee instrument!

>
> It is, but not due to the lack of a theoretical model. It is due to
> the lack of decent tools and the scarcity of good professionals.
>
>>
>>Again, I suspect the "we" perspective here to be related to
>>a specific solution or product related to the RDBMS rather
>>than to the development and extention of database theory.
>
> The problem is not in database theory, it is outside.
>
Both implementation and then deployment spring to mind as the offenders!

Cheers, Frank. Received on Thu Apr 14 2005 - 17:51:30 CEST