Re: Nulls, integrity, the closed world assumption and events
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:22:19 GMT
Message-ID: <%w5th.4008$1x.68099_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
JOG wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote: > >
>>JOG wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dawn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>JOG wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dawn wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>[nonsense bullshit snipped]
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>- the politics
>>>>>of funding requires not publishing results that destroy all of your job
>>>>>security or future income streams, so people's /abject/ disillusionment
>>>>>is substantially unreflected in publications.
>>>>
>>>>I very much understand this, as I do know a bit about this--enough to
>>>>resist any attempts to fund my own research at all, desiring to be
>>>>completely free from any external pressures (and, therefore, just
>>>>engaging in such efforts on the side, instead of picking up knitting at
>>>>my age).
>>
>>Please. Do the world a huge favour and pick up knitting.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>Nonetheless the
>>>>>theoretical discussion of its insufficiency should have been a good
>>>>>place to start.
>>
>>[more bullshit nonsense snipped]
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am not clear what a di-graph with trees on nodes is (I envision some
>>>sort of nested graph structure). But let me say my grievances with
>>>graph based models come from bitter experience of working on a
>>>commercial implementation of such a thing (node identifiers and all)
>>>and developing an associated query language, for about two years. Given
>>>irreducible tuples, confusing what we ended up terming a structural
>>>layer (di-graphs) with the logical layer (only possible using n-ary
>>>edges) became an intractable problem - and one that I now see
>>>everywhere graph models emerge. We tried damn hard to work round it's
>>>deficits, and eventually had to concede defeat. The experience taught
>>>me that an n-ary logical model with value only addressing is essential
>>>in my experience. I wish I had known what I have learnt since back then.
>>
>>Jim, why do you legitimize her snake oil?
> > Legitamize? All I seem to do is disagree vehemently, and try and > explain why. Its wearing me out.
Yes, legitimize. You don't honestly believe her horseshit legitimately deserves a (civil) reply, do you?
>>FWIW, in the late 1980's, I
>>spent three or four years maintaining the source code for a proprietary
>>network model dbms.
>>
>>In the 1990's I correctly predicted that object dbmses were going
>>nowhere because I could recognize exactly what they were. I saw people
>>who might have contributed something waste a decade of their lives.
>>
>>Oh well, it could be worse. When people were too stupid to listen to
>>Churchill, millions of people died. A few wasted careers and some failed
>>software projects pale in comparison.
> > Aye, people make their choices, but not nice to see a waste of talent. > Looks like there are many common experiences of network models on cdt.
That doesn't surprize me. Networks are seductive to naive programmers who frequently learn first about arrays, trees, lists etc. before learning any real fundamentals or theory. I had been programming for four or five years already in a variety of assembler and high level languages before I ever learned what a push-down automaton was, and I graduated with a degree in EE without ever encountering the relational model or even predicate calculus. Received on Mon Jan 22 2007 - 17:22:19 CET