Re: Something new for the New Year (2008).

From: Marshall <>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:01:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Jan 17, 10:28 am, Rob <> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 1:54 pm, Marshall <> wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 9:06 am, Rob <> wrote:
> > > Although Marshall says: "I *still* don't know what you find
> > > interesting about it", I would argue that in addition to being the
> > > first, new relationship representation in 35 years (nested sets
> > > notwithstanding), it also demonstrates considerable analytic utility.
> > I don't think you're taking point-of-view into consideration
> > very well.
> > Let me ask you: looking out my window, I see a lot of
> > fog. I claim it is the kind of fog that is just going to burn
> > off, and not the kind that will turn into rain. Do you agree?
> > See the problem?
> I see one problem. Your "analogy" is between a non-reproducible,
> observable weather state that exists outside your window, and a
> technology that can be reproduced on any SQL DBMS.

Way to completely miss the point, dude.

> > I cannot disprove your "considerable analytic utility" claim.
> > Neither can I confirm it.
> > Maybe I could take a picture of the fog and send it to you.
> > Maybe you could show some of this analytic utility in action.
> > Then we might be on more solid footing with regards to
> > each others claims.
> According to Geoffrey A. Moore in Crossing the Chasm, the people who
> will actually adopt a new technology (he uses the term to mean a
> product) can be divided into Innovators, Early Adopters, The Early
> Majority, The Late Majority and the Laggards. (The "chasm" of the book
> title is between the Early Adopters and the Early Majority.) I would
> not presume to categorize you Marshall, but you are certainly not
> among the first two groups. I could spend time working up example
> applications and spoonfeed them to you, but in the end, you'll say "I
> could do that in SQL without your invention" or "I could write a
> program to do that". And you would miss the point entirely: That the A-
> L representation doesn't solve any problem you could not already
> solve, it just makes it easier.
> Here's a simple problem you can work out yourself: Suppose I have two
> relationships between a pair of relations, R and S. One relationship
> is represented using the PKFK data structure, the other using the JT
> data structure. Are they identical?
> Hints:
> You can copy the PKFK relationship using the technique described here:
> http://localhost/solopages/copypkfktoal.shtml
> You can copy the JT relationship to A-L using the technique described
> here:
> http://localhost/solopages/copyjttoal.shtml
> The webpage (shameless plug)
> is full of detail about structure independence, richness/precision of
> relationship representation and even performance. I'm sorry you cannot
> find anything interesting there. I believe a better use of my energies
> would be to prepare material for use by (Moore's) Innovators and Early
> Adopters.
> No offense is intended here. My resources a very limited. I have to
> spend them where I can hope for the best return.

Okay I have just totally lost patience with this. You have yet to present even a single example, show a single benefit, give even a hint of the supposed advantages you're claiming. You have time to type in reams of crap from feel-good New Age Business books, you have time to psychoanalyze my responses, but then you turn around and hide behind "my time is precious" and tell me to work it out myself. Apparently you have time for everything except writing an example query.

I wouldn't presume to categorize you, Rob, but leading industry pundit Alberto Biggerstaff, writing in Business 3.1 magazine, (64 bit edition) says you're a pompous lackwit, the sort of person who posts http links to localhost, ha, while complaining about others' use of non-reproducible state. I say, with the utmost respect, that in chapter 3 of The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book that Will Change the Way You Do Business (Collins Business Essentials edition) by Clayton M. Christensen, it points out that someone who complains that their time is limited so they can't write a single goddamn example query, but who simultaneously posts reams of irrelevant claptrap, is the sort of hypocrite that is probably destined for marketing greatness.

The conversation *starts* when you write a query under two schemas, the usual one and one using your technique. Then you ***show*** an actual benefit. No offense is intended here, Rob, but quoting "Crossing the Chasm" repeatedly isn't having a conversation; that's you being an asshole.


PS. Once again I must give kudos to Bob Badour who with uncanny accuracy summed up the whole thing in only the second post of the thread. Received on Thu Jan 17 2008 - 21:01:22 CET

Original text of this message