Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)

On May 26, 6:23 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Bruce C. Baker wrote:
> > "Bob Badour" <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:4658bf81$0$4043$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net...
>
> >>Matthias Klaey wrote:
>
> >>>Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >>>>Matthias Klaey wrote:
>
> >>>>>Cimode <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Hi,
>
> >>>>>>Chapter 2 of the little things that can be done at little cost to
> >>>>>>avoid misconceptions about RM design.
>
> >>>>>>Lately, I opened a thread that gave opportunity for CELKO to post the
> >>>>>>exact essence of what should *not* be done in design: let
> >>>>>>subjectiveness regulate design instead of logic. I take the
> >>>>>>opportunity of his thread to point out how and why it is wiser to
> >>>>>>ignore such ideas to build better databases. For that I will take all
> >>>>>>the posted comments and try to make sense out of them.
>
> >>>>>>Regard...
>
> >>>>>[...]
>
> >>>>>Hmm. Is this just the usual Celko-bashing in this newsgroup? Did you
> >>>>>intend to write a parody on how to misread and misinterpert other
> >>>>>peoples texts? You don't mean this seriously, do you?
>
> >>>>Celko is an idiot who need debunking everywhere. You seem to object to
> >>>>debunking idiots.
>
> >>>"Celko is an idiot who need debunking everywhere": This is *your
> >>>opinion* about Celko. I happen to disagree with you (end of *this*
> >>>discussion from my part).
>
> >>That Celko is an idiot is a factual matter and not opinion at all.
>
> > For those of us who are coming a little late to the "Celko is an idiot"
> > thread, could you give a few details about the dimensions of his idiocy?
> > TIA.
>
> groups.google.com

Of course, this is the same place you'll discover that Bob Badour's contributions amount to little more than to pile shit on heretics who deviate from his narrow brand of orthodoxy. The reason it takes him so long to debunk a lot of what people write on these subjects is that his debunking chiefly amounts to finding relatively narrow distinctions between his world view and theirs and using these distinctions to justify him labeling almost everyone else 'idiots'.

You'll also find he's not very consistent. He'll routinely mix terms of art relating to physical data management and logical issues, and he's really rather ignorant of the actual state of play with modern DBMS engines.

My (uninformed) diagnosis is that's all his career he's been an abused and neglected DBA type. Probably with some justification--I think we all share the belief that the relational model and data management gets pretty short shrift--he's annoyed by this. I'm pretty sympathetic, and I don't disagree with everything he says. Received on Wed May 30 2007 - 19:21:48 CEST