Re: The term "theory" as in "database theory"

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:30:51 GMT
Message-ID: <vmJuh.5788$1x.100372@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

JOG wrote:

> Dawn wrote:
>

>>JOG wrote
>>
>>>I still await a
>>>post without any agenda, or baiting, or getting drawn into business
>>>politics -

>

>>OK, it sounds like database theory is a profession that might want to
>>have no users or at least users with no requirements, right?  ;-)  I

>
> More baiting. The 'harlequin' syndrome?
>
>

>>could use some of those myself.  There is that joke about the librarian
>>who said that it was a wonderful day for the library because there were
>>only two books checked out and they were both due today.  Maybe we
>>could write a similar joke about a database theorist?  Just wondering
>>if I'm getting the picture.

>
> It doesn't look like you are. I would like to see posts from you
> without any agenda, or baiting, or getting drawn into business
> anecdotes. Should I not be holding my breath?

That depends: Do you want to asphyxiate?

[snip]

>>so you need to use a "reporting tool" which, funny thing, does
>>not use exclusively set-based queries in its underbelly (which is the
>>reason it can do the job).

>
> I don't see why you can't do MV without sets, and with the use of
> Codd's insights and using traditional predicate logic. It might have
> negative consequences, it might be really good. I don't know, I
> haven't investigated it enough. Point is not to hand wave, and
> actually investigate scientifically (at least as far as a database
> theory forum is concerned).

Without the theory, it sucks. Pick proves that beyond any doubt.

[snip] Received on Sat Jan 27 2007 - 08:30:51 CST