Re: A good book
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 03:35:58 GMT
Message-ID: <yKFrg.133409$IK3.100195_at_pd7tw1no>
>
> 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!
>
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 03:35:58 GMT
Message-ID: <yKFrg.133409$IK3.100195_at_pd7tw1no>
Chris Smith wrote:
> 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!
>
Not to be subjunctive for once, I say this is all OT!
p Received on Sat Jul 08 2006 - 05:35:58 CEST