Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Nested Sets vs. Nested Intervals

Re: Nested Sets vs. Nested Intervals

From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:26:37 GMT
Message-ID: <1Mjff.20523$Hj2.4376@news-server.bigpond.net.au>


DonR wrote:
> Frank Hamersley wrote:

>>DonR wrote:
>>>dawn wrote:
>>>>michael_at_preece.net wrote:
>>>>>I can't understand why no one has suggested Pick for this. Seems
>>>>>perfectly simple to me. Anyone who has used Pick would not think twice
>>>>>about this. The solution to the OP's problem would be trivial in the
>>>>>extreme.
>>>>
>>>>Of course you are right, Mike.  smiles.  --dawn
>>>
>>>Micheal and Dawn,
>>>I see the folks here just ignored the Pick suggestion. This has always
>>>been Pick's problem, the guru's think things have to be complicated to work.
>>>Of course, if they were using Pick, they wouldn't need to be on here
>>>discussing meaningless theory.
>>
>>To me "meaningless" is code for don't (or won't) understand!
>>
>>>I've worked with Pick for 20 years and haven't found a business problem
>>>that Pick couldn't handle.
>>
>>I have never used (although I have worked alongside on occasions) Pick
>>in 25 years and haven't found a business problem that can't be solved
>>either.
>>
>>Cheers, Frank. (Ozi Ozi Ozi Oi Oi Oi)

>
>>To me "meaningless" is code for don't (or won't) understand!

>
> You're right, I don't understand some of these theories but the point
> is, I don't need to.

A bold stance - perhaps foolhardy - but either way a personal choice.

> My employer and our customers would much rather pay me for results than
> theories.

Personally, I have never found theories (or to give more credit, precepts widely held to be useful) a significant impediment to getting results. However I personally eschew the instant gratification model that is prevalent these days, as my experience has shown its not always as simple as the first flush of "results" oft convinces less cynical types.

> This entire discussion points out the adsurd complexities and
> limitations of SQL and relational systems.

Absurd? Complexities? IMO its all quite simple and KISS has never been absurd in my world. Further to you point - why is it axiomatic that limitations are a Bad Thing (tm)?

> Of course, Pick's biggest advantage, ease of use, is also one of it's
> downfalls. Most of the companies running Pick have one or two
> programmers which may have been an operator or an accountant prior to
> becoming the IT manager/programmer. This has resulted in a lot of
> poorly written programs and non-professionalism.

This is the root problem of the highly flexible tool in the hands of the unskilled. A shifting spanner is the ideal proof of this problem! The unskilled users actually start to believe in their own work because the environment goes to lengths to try and save them from themselves. Much better that they get found out sooner before resources and time are needlessly consumed.

> Properly written Pick
> software is fast, flexible, stable and easy and cheap to maintain. What
> more could you want? That's why it's endured for 30 years.

Properly written anything is all those things. Neither Pick nor SQL has a monopoly on this.

Cheers Frank (Germany, here we come!) Received on Fri Nov 18 2005 - 06:26:37 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US