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: Dan <guntermann_at_verizon.net>
Date: 27 Jun 2006 18:05:24 -0700
Message-ID: <1151456724.320922.238550@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

erk wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > Absolutely true! Relational or object-oriented, it doesn't matter,
> > it's the thought process and ability to apply critical analysis to
> > problems that makes or breaks the project or solves the problem in the
> > most elegant way possible.
>
> This seems to imply that the languages and other formalisms are all the
> same, though,

How so? Is this your logic?

  1. If the RM designer is unskilled then the implemented solution sucks.
  2. If the OO programmer is unskilled then the implemented solution sucks.
  3. For any language x, if the programmer/architect/designer is unskilled and ignorant, the implemented solution y sucks.

Therefore all languages and formalisms are the same. ????

I think I know what you meant, but I don't buy it. I have an appreciation for clear, declarative statements, but others don't share my appreciation and are much more adept at linear procedural type thinking. Believe it or not, my 6-8 page declarative queries do confuse some, no matter how logical and self-evident I belive they are.

and I don't think that's true at all. Yes, you can write
> horrid code using Lisp, Haskell, Java, assembler, XML, SQL tables,
> relations, etc., and you can write good systems in them as well, but
> that doesn't mean that some languages and constructs aren't better all
> around than some others.

Did it appear as though I made such a claim? If so, I take it back.

To assert otherwise is to assert that
> languages and systems have no impact on the way we think, and I think
> that's silly.

Again, I fail to see the validity of the logic. How does the assertion or claim that some languages or constructs are not better than others necessarily lead to the conclusion that languages and systems have no impact on the way we think? We are missing a lot of logical connectives and premises here in order to make this connection. I'm talking about form here.

Regardless, what is the objective function for determining "better"? and does your statements then mean that users of some languages and constructs are "better" thinkers? Was Dijkstra an RM user? Wirth? Aristotle?

>
> - Eric

Received on Tue Jun 27 2006 - 20:05:24 CDT

Original text of this message

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