Re: Aggregates: Largest Groups

paul c wrote:
> ... because even such a magnificent
> effort as Tutorial D goes far beyond what is necessary. In the case of
> Tutorial D, I'm pretty sure that this is because of the 'procedural'
> perspective and also because D&D pay homage to physical traditions
> involving concurrency and device techniques and an implied seamless
> progression away from sql. I don't say their motivation is wrong for
> them, but personally I could care less about the SQL legacy nor all the
> mis-specified db's out there, many of them built on ambiguous requirements.
> ...

Sorry for the sloppiness, should have added that I think as desireable for possible convenience as many people think support for inheritance is, I don't think it's absolutely necessary, I believe D&D don't consider it mandatory either.

Really, all I'm saying is that things become pretty simple once one becomes willing to delete extraneous historical requirements. Received on Sun Apr 11 2010 - 03:22:25 CEST