Re: OT Bull-fight avoidance

Keith H Duggar wrote:

> dawn wrote:
>

>>Keith H Duggar wrote:
>>
>>>dawn wrote:
>>>

[very insightful analysis of Dawn's sophistry snipped]

> Stop it Dawn! More of this "must" and "important" crap false
> dichotomy.
>

>>I think I have even seen a counter-example.

>>[can] you tell me if and why those implementing DBMS's
>>that stem from the RM either tend to or always write the
>>DBMS tools so that it is advantageous for optimization to
>>know the individual max lengths of the attributes?

The answer to "if" is no. Those implementing DBMS's stemming from the RM neither tend to nor always write such DBMS tools. Dawn is a self-aggrandizing ignorant. This straw man she constructed has been explained away a dozen times already.

Because the answer to "if" is no, "why" does not even apply in the first place.

> As to "if" I have no idea. As to "why" how can one ever know
> the motivations of another? I would suggest asking them (the
> implementors) or checking for technical papers documenting
> their design choices. Now I can speculate that they /allow/
> users to specify constraints both for conceptual and logical
> usefulness AND for the usual performance benefits that
> additional KNOWLEDGE (in this case of size) might allow. And
> again this has nothing to do with RM specifically. Rather it
> is just the usual /computer/ implementation (of anything)
> issues and trades.

Keith, I respectfully point out that you are playing into Dawn's hand by pretending to have a dialogue with her. She is a self-aggrandizing ignorant with an axe to grind. You treat her as if she is sincere, which just gives her more opportunity to shovel truckloads of horseshit. She is manipulating you into a monologue so she can ride along and claim credit for it.

You have already noticed that her arguments are pointless sophistry. Pointless, that is, if intended to pursuade intelligent, educated people with the time to digest what she wrote.

She does not participate here to pursuade such people. Her only goal is to baffle with bullshit those who lack either the education or the time to catch her in her sophistry.

The coup de grace will come when she blames you for her own incapacity and unwillingness to understand simple english.

It's much more effective to just point out that she is a self-aggrandizing ignorant trying to sell snake oil to an unsuspecting public and leave it at that.

Beyond giving Dawn a platform from which to shill her substandard and potentially dangerous wares, your continued interraction with her wastes everyone's time.

>>Is it a correct observation and, if so, do you know why it
>>is the case that DBMS's developed from other models are
>>more likely to (but certainly don't always) provide tools
>>where the specification of a max length on individual
>>attributes is not (as) important?

No, it is not a correct observation. Has that not been made sufficiently clear yet? Even an eight year old can understand and accept no the first time.

> I have no experience with DBMS products. Others have stated
> this is simply a hallucination. Do you have any DATA on the
> matter?
>
> (Wait, I just recalled I used FileMaker Pro quite a bit some
> years ago. I NEVER input any size constraints. Is FileMaker
> an RDBMS? If so does this demolish your generalization?)

FileMaker is a file processor and not a DBMS just as Pick is a file processor and not a DBMS. However, I suspect as far as file processors go, FileMaker is probably closer to relational than Pick will ever be.

> dawn wrote:
>

>>Keith H Duggar wrote:
>>
>>>mAsterdam wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have recently refrained from asking questions
>>>>revealing ignorance because of
>>>
>>>Perhaps your hesitancy has more to do with personal
>>>pride?
>>
>>I no not what I'm hesitant about nor what I'm prideful
>>about.

Self-aggrandizing ignorants try to claim credit whereever and whenever they can. Received on Mon May 29 2006 - 15:00:28 CEST