Re: Quote from comp.object

On Mar 6, 6:07 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> What a moron this dbms dumber guy is. One can have a computer without
> unecessary process context switches. Duh!

You can wait until you have the moon and the stars and a long life and sunshine and comfortable shoes and unicorns, fairies, and goblins at the bottom of the garden if you want. Me - I'll plant vegetables with the shovels I'm given.

Last time I checked, the OP's comment was about the performance differences between 'hierarchical' and 'SQL DBMS'. We have spent the bulk of the thread talking about why this is. Bob's contributions run to 'self-aggrandizing ignorants', 'moron', and some poorly articulated fantasy (An operating system involves context switches or it does not. Is he talking about operating systems with context switches but application architectures which minimize them? Or operating systems without context switches at all?) about a non-existant computer. Bob's the primate who defecates in his hand and flings it at anyone who fails to distinguish between 'SQL DBMS' and 'relational DBMS', as the OP clearly did. Once again, Bob demonstrates that he can dish out the abuse, but doesn't even notice his own lack of comprehension.

We are NOT talking about anyone's ideal DBMS here. We're talking about the shovels we have, and noting that, flawed as it is, the SQL shovel we have is superior for digging vegetables than the hierarchical shovel. Received on Tue Mar 06 2007 - 20:31:10 CET