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: What databases have taught me

Re: What databases have taught me

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:26:01 GMT
Message-ID: <ZZing.89678$Mn5.28490@pd7tw3no>


Marshall wrote:
> Nick Malik [Microsoft] wrote:

>> One of the more brilliant troll messages I've seen in a while.  You say
>> nothing that contributes to anything.  You blast someone's pet idea without
>> offering anything in return.  Then you sit back and watch the flames fly.

>
> You're going to feel silly, having written the above, when you are
> far enough along to reach the same realization that JOG had.
>
> I speak from experience.

I'm with you, seems a premature, maybe even an immature judgment to me.   Didn't read all the offshoots but part of the thread struck me as provocative and interesting after keith d made his light compiler comment. Aloha added to it with his relation literals although I'm not sure whether he or she intended that. Maybe it's just because bridging the theory and the machine is an interest of mine. I think it's not so much a compiler matter but more to do with what I think of as a minimal interpreter. I think D&D Algebra is quite implementable all by itself and that would have value.

In one post, bob b hinted at optimization/user friendliness issues (my words, not his) which my point-of-view usually considers to be nothing more than a matter of taste (I was more or less in agreement with what Dijkstra said about "user-friendly" in one of his interviews - I think he was complaining about lowest-common-denominator UI's, which Codd opened the door for). I could be more provocative and say that I think other practical matters such as persistence and transactions are orthogonal to rt and so would. Not to criticize D&D as I think they have done a public service (even if they've made a few bucks/quid out of it). The parts of TD I've spent time on seem to be me to be aimed above all else at preventing ambiguity and I've seen it called verbose but I think that is a necessary result of its intention. Rel has been criticized as ponderous (my word) but as teaching tools rather than something I'd like to make appl'ns out of, I think both TD and Rel are both fine efforts. Even if they weren't they'd still be worth talking about as they are rather unique in trying to bridge theory and machines.

p Received on Sat Jun 24 2006 - 17:26:01 CDT

Original text of this message

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