Re: Proposal: 6NF

paul c wrote:

> Still, the bulk of the apps I've seen
> don't need that extended type support ...

I couldn't disagree with this observation more strongly. Without a rich type system, we can't talk about the right things (attributes). If we can't talk about the right things, we can't reasonably expect to construct proper statements (relations). As well to make assertions about horse racing by discussing camels :) And to have a rich type system, we'd better make sure the underpinnings are at least consistent and preferably correct ;)

> ... and the bulk of the commercial
> programmers I've seen couldn't master the concepts behind it. The same
> is more patent when it comes to oop.

I offer no observation on the quality of the average programmer.

> I'll grant that a few apps need
> more, but those deserve to be handled by people who are a little
> above-average. So as for most apps, what are we playing at?
>

I would expect that there would turn out to be a separation between programmers building types and operators, and programmers combining those types and operators in workflow-type applications.

> My attitude is that once a critical mass in an engine is reached, it is
> silly to try to stretch it to encompass additional concepts.

Brooks' comments about conceptual integrity spring to mind.

[ snippage ]

• Tony

(Unwell, and stuck in the midst of an implementation of a certain famous package with a certain famous database. Currently, I envy the dead.) Received on Tue Oct 17 2006 - 15:03:54 CEST