Re: A good book

Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> It's not a difficult request. You are just too ignorant and too arrogant
> to quietly accept the correct answer.

If Codd's paper is the right answer, then I am reading it. However, I don't tend to stand back and let people spew nonsense. I have certainly been getting a little annoyed at your repeated, and apparently intentional, misunderstandings of what I'm asking; especially the constant switch from "database" to "relational theory" as if the two are the same thing. I already know enough database blowhards. I don't know whether you're a database blowhard or not -- Marshall seems to respect you, which says a lot -- but that's definitely database blowhard territory, and others' opinions can only last for so long before they are replaced by personal experience.

I do actually know the above rhetorical device quite well. It's a slippery little device you can use nearly with impunity. Its primary purpose is to allow database blowhards to feel superior by pretending that everyone else just lacks rigor or mathematical understanding. The trick is that the word "relation" occurs both in the mathematical theory of relations and also in "relational database". It must be used carefully, of course, for if it's brought to the surface, everyone really knows that mathematicians studied relations for many, many years before there were databases; but if held just below the consciousness, it is quite effective indeed. Ah yes, I know it well.

That said, clearly the innovations by real researchers in the field have been very helpful. I'd like to find out more about their work, and even blowhards (or their imitators, as the case may be) can be occasionally useful. Five levels deep in this thread, you finally mentioned Codd's paper, which I was then able to find, in addition to the first couple books. Whew. It just required a little over a day of listening to you answer everything in the world except where to find good information on relational theory, including trying to ask me to read through thousands of pages of writing by Dijkstra, who never gave more than a passing mention to relational databases at all!

Why the persistence, though? It turns out that it's because you're insulting and condescending, and I've yet to master the art of figuring out when to just ignore insulting and condescending people. I will attempt to avoid that mistake in the future... but no promises!

-- 
Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer / Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation