Re: Terminology question

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:47:11 GMT
Message-ID: <PbBLg.9974$9u.140261@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

pamelafluente_at_libero.it wrote:

>>Actually,  I liked "data source" best of all the terms you proposed.  The
>>only way in which that term might be misleading

>
> ..
>
> Thanks all for the nice discussion.
>
> This was my first post here and I was still not aware of the people
> featured by this group. I have taken a look at the posts and got some
> idea ;)
>
> Well I spend around 18 hours a day with debuggers and databases and do
> not devote much time trying to frame (relatively) known things into
> definitions. I like more the inverse approach: prefer to have a working
> experience of things and then, if someone might ask me what is that, I
> may try to make an effort to capure it into a definition. Usually
> * a technical definition does not make any sense if you do not already
> know what we are talking about *

In other words, you habitually flail about in aimless ignorance until someone puts you on the spot by asking you what the hell you think you are doing.

> Take for instance all the concept of object oriented programming
> (inheritance, polymorphism, encapsulation, interfaces, etc...). There
> is no way you can get their *real* meaning if you do not apply everyday
> them in some very large project. You only assume to kno: but probably
> you dont.

All object oriented proponents only assume to know--even those who apply them every day in some very large project. For instance, define "object".

I direct your attention to Dijkstra's comments regarding the illusive power of elixirs.

> Take for istance the most basic:
>
> "A logically coherent collection of related real-world data
> assembled for a specific purpose."
>
> if I write the names of my friends on a piece of paper, that would fit
> the above. Bob you would laught at me if I call it a "database".Ah ah.

Actually, you would do well to listen to what Bob actually says instead of trying to put your own ignorance into his mouth. A list of friends on a piece of paper is, indeed, a database.

> Well I could argue that is in fact a dbms because there is also some
> service attached provided by myself. Ah ah.

If you have some systematic way to manage that database, then you have a database management system that includes you and the paper and all of the other tools comprising the system. Probably a piss-poor dbms, but a dbms nevertheless. Neither the piece of paper nor the list of names themselves are systems; thus, your argument that either the piece of paper or the list of names is a dbms would fall flat.

To illustrate: You could argue that a tire is a transportation system with equal validity.

  And it is probably smarter
> that any other dbms you could find around, although of limited capacity
> and speed. Well, I could buy more paper and hire a few slaves... Ah ah

There you go anthropomorphizing again. You won't ever become very smart if you continue to lean on that crutch.

> Definitions are an arrival point from certain persons, and a starting
> point for other persons.

Meaningless nonsense.

> The first often think that the definition is too narrow. The latter
> often think that it is too generical and could fit many things.

Further nonsense.

> After all a definition is always tautological because based on other
> definitions.

Here again, you repeat your deconstructionist nonsense that words are ultimately meaningless and communication pointless. I know that's fashionable among intellectual cripples in europe, but I suggest you try to rise above your current limitations.

  In math it is useful to define some (undefined, but
> usually intuitive) assioms and the derive everything from that.

Define the undefined?!? Gibberish. Do better.

  But in
> real life we could assume that everything we know is the result of
> working knowledge, and does not require definition. Like we do not
> bother to define axiomatic conceps, we could just assume an intuitive
> comprehension of what we know.

I highly recommend Gilovich's _How We Know What Isn't So_.

Plonk! Received on Wed Sep 06 2006 - 09:47:11 CDT