Re: Do Data Models Need to built on a Mathematical Concept?

"Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message news:b8jpgb$2ote$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com...
> "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
> news:Zp3ra.650860$F1.86675_at_sccrnsc04...
> > Ha ha! At my university, I had the opportunity to take database classes
> > from Michael Stonebreaker, but I figured it would be about the same
> > thing as taking accounting.
>
> You were probably right.
> Taken by Michael Stonebreaker, I guess it would be all implementation details
> and little theory?
> The class I missed is taken by Hugh Darwen would you believe.

You win! :-)

> I'm no expert on FP, but I agree that side-effects are the real issue. (In
> relational also. Why do folks not see referential actions (and view updates!)
> for what they are - side effect changes to the database value)

Okay, that's an interesting perspective. But without updatable views, how do you update your schema over time and keep your applications working? (This is not a rhetorical question; I want to know your thoughts.)

> Functional programs are at a higher level of abstraction. To quote
> http://www.haskell.org/aboutHaskell.html
> "The focus is on what is to be computed, not how it should be computed"
>
> What, not How. Now where have I heard that before...

Heh heh.

> Systems languages? That's almost like including 'hardware logic' in our
> definition of what is needed to build applications. Systems/internals is
> 'under the covers', use what language you like, it's outside of my world view.

Fair enough.

Marshall Received on Tue Apr 29 2003 - 07:38:56 CEST