Re: A good book

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.

Well, there are databases and there are databases. I suppose a collection of business cards could be considered a database. But in the world of c.d.t, relational theory is the only foundation of on which any database should be built.

   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".

There's a reason that's so. Codd, a mathematician, saw the utility of managing data as subsets of cartesian products. His relations, of course, differed from those of math in that he insisted that tuples form a set.

Many of those in this group know the difference between relations, relations, relation algebra, and relational algebra. Granted, the differences seem subtle (they're not) and the terminology isn't uniform and we often say "relation" when we mean "relation value" or "relation variable" and we sometimes drift into the realms of predicate logic -- but the intention isn't to mislead or obfuscate.

   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!

Bob becomes impatient. His responses, while almost always on point, are precise and extremely concise. When the point he's making is missed -- or ignored -- he cranks it up a notch. Or two.

If you don't understand something and want to understand, just ask him. If you don't understand something and respond as though it doesn't matter, break out the flameproof underwear.

He's spanked many of us from time to time... Received on Sat Jul 08 2006 - 20:17:29 CEST