Re: XQuery (and XML) vs LISP

"Gene Wirchenko" <genew_at_ucantrade.com.NOTHERE> wrote in message news:d0fkv1t5h1q9vqf9iungn44rrd2drvqhal_at_4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:31:14 GMT, "David Cressey"
> <dcressey_at_verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >"Mark Johnson" <102334.12_at_compuserve.com> wrote in
> >
> >> And that's a straw man. That's not what I said. But at least we agree
> >> that the examples typically shown are pointlessly trivial. Actually,
> >> it's a common complaint against academics.
> >
> >In reality, it's a common complaint against introductory material in
almost
> >any sphere of endeavor.
>
> True. Now, where is the next level? Often, it is absent.
>
> A while back, I was reading a book on TCP/IP. A program had a
> comment that error checking was omitted for clarity. Fine. I ran the
> program, and it happened to work. I was aware though that errors can
> occur, and my question was then what errors could occur and how to
> handle them. The book did not have a version with error handling.
> Dropped ball.
>
> >They introduce the alphabet and the numbers from one to ten on Sesame
> >Street. The examples they use are "pointlessly trivial", when viewed
from
> >the perspective of a CPA who reads Shakespeare for pleasure. But they
> >aren't pointlessly trivial from the perspective of the kids who are
watching
> >and learning.
>
> True, but what if combining letters into words was never covered?
>
> >I would expect a good schema to introduce relational concepts to consist
of
> >less than 20 tables. I would expect it to be somewhat simpler that
> >something people get paid to do. I'm surprised that you expect
otherwise.
>
> I would hope so. I would also like to see a more complex, more
> real version for the intermediate level, say: "Here is a simple
> invoicing system used by a client of mine, a small manufacturer's rep.
> The introductory database is a simplified version. Let us examine the
> differences between the two and why they are there. . . ."

Agreed. Received on Tue Feb 21 2006 - 15:23:04 CET