Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

dawn wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > dawn wrote:
> > > I agree. If we are going to start somewhere and move
> > > forward, we might be well-served to look to what works
> > > today outside of the RM (even though it, of course,
> > > typically markets itself as relational). Is it less
> > > expensive to work with Cache' than Oracle given such
> > > and such an environment? If so, why?
> >
> > Is there theory behind any of this? Any mathematical
> > models or other formalisms? It seems to me that
> > comparing Cache with Oracle for TCO is not on-topic on
> > c.d.t.
> >
> > Does any of "what works today outside of the RM" have
> > any theory behind it? This is a theory newsgroup after
> > all.
>
> Hi Marshall. The reason I originally came to this list
> was to learn

Stop lying, Dawn. From even your first postings in cdt it is evident that you came with a history to grind a PICK-ax, not to learn.

> what it was about the theory that lead the industry down a
> path of throwing out some good features such as lists,
> which I have used as my primary example.

And it has been explained to you so many times that lists have not been "thrown out". Stop lying, Dawn.

> So I want to talk about theory and its relationship to
> practice. We don't need another two decades of flawed
> tools that blindly try to follow another flawed theory.

Here you show the exact mentality I warned Neo about when I used you as an example. Arrogant and ignorant dismissal of what came before you as "blind" and "flawed". Yes, that is surely the attitude of /someone who wants to learn/.

[snip complete non-sense]

Dawn, even as a novice when it comes to relational theory, and with limited historical knowledge, even I can tell that paragraph was complete non-sense theoretically, socially, and historically.

> So, while I want to talk about theory and its relationship
> to practice, I'm not developing theory, and I don't know
> the totality of the theory behind any di-graph models, for
> example.

In other words your answer to Marshall's question is in fact "I don't know". Then why did you post? Simply to rant?

> I suspect that there are many here who would not accept
> anything other than set theory

There you go, assume some idiotic "suspicions" about the people you are trying to "learn" from.

> Did that clarify?

It clarifies far more than you intended.

> If so, is that, or is that not a valid discussion in this
> forum? (Don't worry, even if you suggest it is valid to
> discuss, I will still keep a low profile here as I know
> there are some who really, really dislike having me around
> and I prefer the company of those who are at least civil
> in their discourse when they disagree with someone, as
> you, David, mAsterdam, JOG, x, and many others have always
> been).

Yes, yes you clearly prefer civil discourse such as calling others "terrorists" and "rapists". And in case you haven't noticed or don't understand, rants are not "low profile".

• Keith -- Fraud 6