Re: A good book

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 02:39:55 GMT
Message-ID: <%VErg.132381$Mn5.3350@pd7tw3no>

Chris Smith wrote:
> paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote:

>> I know nobody asked me but can't resist.  What we want isn't always what 
>> we get.  First, what we get from the RT is the certainty (with a 
>> faithful implementation) that results of the relops are logically 
>> correct, just like how we can depend on certain mathematical results 
>> when we know they are based on mathematical theory.

>
> Okay. This seems pretty basic; the sort of thing that's just taken for
> granted... but if the IMS database didn't provide a valid specification
> and implement it faithfully (up to bugs, anyway, which get fixed when
> identified), then it certainly deserved to be replaced. :)

As did many of the 60's implementations deserve to be, if you ask me (which I admit you didn't)!

  I haven't
> used any OO database products, but I would be rather surprised if they
> did not provide specifications of reliable behavior.
>

I think that whenever one uses the subjunctive case talking about today's IT, one would be prudent to prepare to be surprised.

>> ...

> Just to once again be entirely clear about this, my intention here is
> not to criticize databases or to advocate non-relational data store
> technologies. I would be a weak advocate indeed, since as soon as
> someone asks if I've ever used one, I would have to admit that no, I
> have not. I am not attempting to deny that important consequences arise
> from connections between relational database systems and the
> mathematical theory. I am simply asking what they are.
>

I didn't think you were criticizing, even though you have every right to. Getting people to listen to critiques is another thing. I'm not a defender of RT as I think it speaks for itself, although I'll admit that what some people call the ability to abstract is a necessary skill for heating what it says. It just has seemed more solid as an underpinning for technique than anything I've seen in the last twenty years or so. Of course there could be something great that I haven't seen and I think this is more possible than might be obvious as many products that were well put together even if not based on much theory have fallen by the wayside - just look at the history of spreadsheets.

>>...

> Believe me, I don't actually intend to read only one book. If I'd asked
> for everyone's top 10 list, though, I'd be beyond the realm of
> possibility after a few responses. In reality, I will probably read at
> least a few books and papers, and I've enrolled in a graduate-level
> evening class at a local university in the fall semester which may or
> may not do a reasonable job of covering relational databases from a more
> conceptual level. We'll see.
>
> As for Russell's book, it is again about relations, and not about how
> databases use them. It's looking like reading Codd's paper would be a
> good place to start for me, and then a couple of Date's books. And
> whatever the main text is for this class in the fall, I will probably
> read at least bits of that. I'm still thinking about Marshall's
> recommendation. :)
>

CJ Date has said something like that the 'amount' of logic one must know is not much. I mentioned Russell's book partly out of whimsy even though I believe what I said was true. Now I can`t explain this stuff the way Date can, in fact I usually can`t even explain myself on the topic, but just because it ``isn`t much`` doesn`t make it any easier. I think it is hard. That`s why I like it, same for most aspects of math which I`ve always found hard. In the present times, when the commercial advantage is widely seen as paramount, I sometimes think such topics are suited only for oddballs like me, whereas Russell wrote his book for the common man. In London and other GB cities, there are still societies where one can go one evening a week to hear various world experts talk for free to the general public, although today there aren`t many IT topics to be had at those sessions. There`s never been much of that in North America unless one was willing to put up with product bumpf.

Just an old guy spouting off - the plonk`s in me now, so I`m off. Good luck in your search.

p Received on Fri Jul 07 2006 - 21:39:55 CDT