Re: RDBMSs timeline poster
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:35:51 +0200
Message-ID: <525f06b7$0$26880$e4fe514c_at_dreader37.news.xs4all.nl>
On 2013-10-15 10:01:42 +0000, Erwin said:
> Op dinsdag 15 oktober 2013 11:20:42 UTC+2 schreef Erwin:
>> >> >> >> I'm curious to know which exactly are those "many points of view" you >> [think you] share with Derek. That's all.
>
> For example, do you share the point of view that "Thou shalt not have
> circular references" ?
No. Except perhaps as an implementation compromise if you cannot make it work without it, but certainly not as a "first principle".
> For example, in that same thread talking about "cyclic dependencies",
> do you share the point of view that "It violates common sense. One
> knows that something is wrong; that it will cause problems; one does
> not need a theorist to come up with a rule or a hilarious "mathematical
> definition" to prove that the common sense God gave us is a Good
> Thing." ?
No. I consider that "it violates common sense" a nice example of the “Surely” Klaxon as introduced by Daniel Dennett. It's something you see often with experienced technicians who have grown so accustomed to certain habits that they have forgotten that these were actually hacks to get around technical short-comings.
> For example, still in that same thread, do you share the point of view
> that "Now, if you have lost your common sense, or you think that every
> business requirement must be implemented as stated (which makes you a
> clerk, not an technician), then will see this as a dilemma, and
> struggle with it for weeks." ?
Not really. I'm on the side of "as much as possible". They're called requirements for a reason. In my experience the error is usually on the "too little" side. Typically the engineer managing the system prefers to implement fewer of them because that makes his or her life easier, and the cost is not directly felt.
> For example, do you share the point of view that "There is nothing
> mutually dependent or co-dependent about it. There is only one
> direction in the constraint, in any constraint." ?
No. I'm not sure what it means for a constraint to have a direction.
> For example, do you share the point of view that "The Date and Darwen
> books are yesterdays abortions, re-hashed and re-titled. Good for
> training your mind to think like a schizophrenic. " ?
Well, no. Date and Darwin often make excellent points, and I like their meticulous and clear style, but they mix that with a hubris and unscientific attitude that I sometimes find hard to digest. Check for example how rarely they have published peer-reviewed work that was properly exposed to the critcism of scientific peers. I'm sure they have good explanations for that, but there is a reason why the scientific process strongly suggests that ideas are not taken seriously unless they can withstand the critical examination of fellow experts. To be fair, I don't see many other academics who are developing a similar high-level coherent vision on what database should and should not be.
- Jan Hidders