Re: theory and practice: ying and yang

From: erk <eric.kaun_at_gmail.com>
Date: 1 Jun 2005 06:04:37 -0700
Message-ID: <1117631077.779782.276190_at_g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


mountain man wrote:
> "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jatd9113t5nvs404pe63npqpoqs4qg5ptu_at_4ax.com...
> > No, that is due to other reasons. SQL DBMS are ill designed but they
> > still are the best we have.
>
> Of course they are, because they have to a large degree
> (not a small degree) embraced the principles of the RM
> according to Codd - not CJ Date.

What distinction are you making here? The use of nulls?

> Codd, not Date, was the author of the RM.
> Codd reserves a place for nulls.
> Date does not.
> End of story.

What story was that again? Codd was indeed the author of the RM, but like any theory, it doesn't necessarily mean he has the final word (whatever respect may be accorded him).

> Today's RDBMS software follows the RM of Codd,
> not the RM as portrayed by Date et al.

In something more than in the use of nulls? Does SQL adhere to Codd's "definition" of nulls?

  • Eric
Received on Wed Jun 01 2005 - 15:04:37 CEST

Original text of this message