Re: Lets get physical

J M Davitt wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > Are you mentally impaired?
> >
> > I have posted specific sentences from FP totally negating your initial
> > statement that FP would have advocated that TRM is not physical...
>
> Quoting directly from the URI you posted,
>
> TRM is at a lower level than the relational model (RM),
> it is nevertheless a model, and not a physical implementation.
>
> So, I'm confused: how is it that you assert paulc is incorrect when
> saying that TRM is not physical?
Because I know how to read (see extract from dbdebunk) and I am not mentally impaired (at least not yet)...Duh!!! If you truly believe that implementation concerns more logical layer from RM than physical layer that says it all...

I can't help noticing that long time practice of SQL has a similar long term effect in deteriorating cognitive abilities of people advocating it...

FP was right in stopping wasting time with SQL for at least 20 years...

> >
> > paul c a écrit :
> >
> >
> >>Cimode wrote:
> >>
> >>>Check this page
> >>>
> >>>http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/1548800.htm for more info...
> >>>
> >>
> >>I think one would have to search all the pages to prove it's not there.
> >>
> >>p
> >
> >
> >
Received on Fri Jun 16 2006 - 11:48:33 CEST