Re: Terminology question

pamelafluente_at_libero.it wrote:

> I find "connecting to a
>

>>database" wrong-minded and borderline anthropomorphizing.
>>
>>In a database theory newsgroup, the logical level means something very
>>specific. It strikes me that the artifacts you describe are physical
>>artifacts of your application's implementation and not logical at all.
>>
>>>>I haven't a clue what you are talking about. A database is a set of
>>>>facts. How one 'connects' to that is beyond me.
>>>>
>>>>I suggest you focus on mastering the basics before inventing new
>>>>terminology.

Ignorance and self-interest make a seductive (even if ultimately anti-social and harmful) combination. Your attitude goes a long way toward explaining our industry's prolonged immaturity.

Since, in your apparent view, words are arbitrary and ultimately meaningless, why did you bother posting your original question in the first place?

  Being important only the, say, "absolute" and "general"
> understandability, as technical jargon is subject to rapid change, and
> it is not necessarily generally understandable.

However, we are not talking about fads in technical jargon but mathematical terms with specific meanings. While those change, the pace is slower, and understanding reveals education. I suggest your pursuit of the latest fashion would satisfy you more in a product-specific, vendor-supported newsgroup.

> Suggesting incompetence of persons who one knows nothing about does not
> serves the purpose as well.

My response was entirely empirical: I based it on the evidence before me. That the vast majority of application programmers are incompetent improves my odds, though.

  Thanks anyway, interaction is always
> useful. I will ask somewhere else. Thank you.

I suggest you start by asking yourself what your goal is. Received on Mon Sep 04 2006 - 17:35:52 CEST