Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:57:03 GMT
Message-ID: <zd8hf.2337$ea6.1288_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:44:14 GMT, FrankHamersley
> <FrankHamersleyZat_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>>...or is it because none of the various theories don't cut it (yet)?
>
> No, it is more the cult of practicality.
I capiche! However it seems the most enduring contributions to any field exhibit hallmarks of elegance and simplicity (perhaps only to the trained eye) such that even previous non-adherents accept and it becomes conventional wisdom.
As my school physics teacher oft used to regale us with his "war" stories, it calls to mind the one where he was 3 years into his Phd when Bohr's Theory of the Atom was zapped. Clearly the arguments put were so compelling that he discarded years of conventional belief and started anew (or at least his Prof/Supervisor was convinced).
Whilst perhaps remaining a fence sitter (as NULLs give me little trouble in the practical sphere), I am yet to detect arguments even remotely as compelling as Codd's original exposition on the RM.
> Too many people claim to be practical when all it means is expediency.
Sad but true - in IT more so than the real professions.
> Some actions appear
> to be quick, easy solutions in the short term. It is after you have
> gotten stuck into them that the nastiness appears and then, it is too
> late to change. Pass another band-aid.
There is even a deeper subtext in your use of the band-aid metaphor. In fact the patient often needs a superior surgical team and ICU, yet ppl apply the band-aids hoping the aortal haemorrhage will just stop - somehow!
>>Not one of them seem to have universal appeal when the "solution" angle >>is considered. Most of the various pundits energy seems directed at
>
> Given the practical bunch, would you expect everyone to read the theory?
>
No - but it doesn't relieve the burden on a theorist of having to carry
the day with them too. Hence my earlier comments about elegant and
compelling proposals. Simple hand-waving about SQL as damaged goods or
the OP championing MV systems etc doesn't seem to meet these criteria
else he would be using terms like QED without challenge.
Cheers,