Re: theory and practice: ying and yang

mountain man wrote (replying to Alfredo):
> So you are asserting that IBM, Oracle and MS SQL-DBMS
> have no right to be termed relational?

They're relational-scented, not much more. Certainly better than some older data models, but they ignore enough relational theory to diminish their power and generality, and to complicate their implementations.

> 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.

True.

> > 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.

Which could be used to argue the value of the RM, even in dilution.

> Date ignores the proofs of Godel and Chaitin.
> He may be scientific, but he is at least 80 years
> behind the implications of current set theory.
> I will deal with this aspect in future threads.

I'd like to see it - waving Godel about as some sort of postmodern deconstruction of set theory always makes for a fun conversation.

• Eric