Re: theory and practice: ying and yang

On Thu, 26 May 2005 23:36:05 GMT, "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:

>> Indeed, one should be prepared for any kind of shameful arguments
>
>Pot? Black? Quoting you in another thread .....

You are polluting the group with incoherences for a long time.

>> And an Isetta has some right to be termed "sport car".
>
>So you are asserting that IBM, Oracle and MS SQL-DBMS
>have no right to be termed relational?

They have legal right but their products are not relational.

>>>Vendors IBM, Oracle and Microsoft are taking a large advantage
>>>of the RM.
>>
>> But a little part of its full advantage.
>
>My point, which you appear to agree with, is that the vendors
>are indeed taking some advantage from the RM. I am not at
>this point concerned with 'How Much', only that it is not null.

Of course it is not null, that is evident and nobody said the contrary. You don't need to understand the Relational Model in order to take some advantage on it.

>> SQL DBMS vendors have made the database systems practice unnecesarily
>> complex and esoteric at expense of usefulness.
>
>That's why these vendors command over 85% of the
>database market, with this share increasing every year.

No, that is due to other reasons. SQL DBMS are ill designed but they still are the best we have.

>> Date's approach is scientifical and the esoterism is in your side.
>
>Date ignores the proofs of Godel and Chaitin.

This is plain nonsensical.

>> The thread's subject is a good example of that.
>
>
>Are you in this just for the money Alfredo?

What is "this"?

Regards Received on Fri May 27 2005 - 12:24:46 CEST