Re: ROBUST:Please dont' use it this term.

Louis Marchand <louis.marchand_at_connects.com> wrote:

>People who use the term ROBUST:
> Forgive me for this post but several of the responses concerning
>'Oracle vs. SQLServer' have contained uses of the word 'robust' and I
>find terribly irritating. What, EXACTLY, does the term 'robust' mean.
>I'd sure like a clear and unequivocal definition of the term. Is there
>a benchmark test of DBMS A vs. DBMS B which shows that DBMS A doesn't
>corrupt (eg. tables don't become corrupt or indexes don't become corrupt
>or... ) as frequently as DBMS B and is that why a person would call DBMS
>A more 'robust' than DBMS B? Can you justify your use of this term? If
>not, then don't use it. I've seen 'robust' used so many times, it's
>become cliche. Please, I beg you, dont' use it unless you can really
>justify it in some sort of quantitatve way. The experts on SQLServer
>(eg. Neil Pike, Kalen Delany, Brian Moran... forgive me if I've
>misspelled your name) never use it. The software development community
>uses it to death. I feel it's a term used to bullshit people who aren't
>computer literate. To sound sophisticated...
 

>Forgive me if I'm out of line on this. I don't mean to piss anyone off.
 

>Louis Marchand
>march014_at_tc.umn.edu
>OR
>louis.marchand_at_connects.com

Your argument regarding the use of this term is far more robust than any I've seen in SQL Server newsgroups.

Mike Palmer Received on Wed Apr 02 1997 - 00:00:00 CEST