Re: foundations of relational theory?

Why is it that every time I see a post from this guy, he has had to resort to gutter level vitriol, or wrap his posts with a copious helping of techno-babble, or both.

Can you imagine this guy making "First Contact" with an intelligent being from another planet. First, of course, he would have to admit that that the being actually WAS intelligent (carefully sidestepping the fact that THEY had come to Earth, rather than the reverse). Assuming for a moment he got over that hurdle, my take on the (one-sided) conversation would be ...

"Well I'm afraid your system isn't SQL compliant, and I don't really understand the basic technology that has been used, so there is no way your system can work in the real world !?"

I pity this arrogant red neck, who is so self absorbed that he believes that he is the sole purveyor of the past, present and future .... kinda reminds me of another fairy story about a king & some new clothes, but the thought of such an impotent image is simply too much of a distraction.

Hmm, must change this avatar ........

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:<PIOdncFxOcijSjSiRVn-tw_at_golden.net>...
> "Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote in message
> news:pEhqb.16$re.107_at_news.oracle.com...
> > "Patrick Payne" <patrickpayne_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:b6da8ff0.0311051706.3e048add_at_posting.google.com...
> > > Well put Chandru. My feeling here is that SQL was originally designed
> > > as a Data Extraction Tool (i.e. query language). SQL was really
> > > nothing more than a 'APPLICATION' that then touched the database. SQL
> > > was then extended to do updates and was extended to be a end-all data
> > > access application. The nice thing about this model was that it
> > > forced all data access to go thru this one app. Any of us that write
> > > application understand the benefits of using a standardized module for
> > > data access/update.
> > >
> > > Data integrity then became an issue. Data contraints were added, then
> > > triggers, etc. But I believe we (the industry) has finally realized
> > > that this was the wrong direction and has moved towards the 3-tier
> > > data model. In this model we do not allow the end user direct access
> > > to the database. Instead we develop business modules that the user
> > > calls. This model has the advantages of Forced Data Integrity, the
> > > end user does not have to know our data model. Essentially it creates
> > > customized mini-sql engines for our data objects. As I study this
> > > model more and play with it with Microsoft .net, Disconnected
> > > datasets, and XML data sets, I really feel this is the future.
> >
> > And who are you to tell us the future? For starters, look at Michael
> > Stonebraker's video lecture at
> > http://murl.microsoft.com/ContentMapDetails.asp?SeriesID=27
> > When dumb practitioners learn that client-server paradigm is still used in
> > 3-tier implementations?
>
> Future? Who the hell is he to tell us the past? The history of SQL is
> well-known and in no way resembles the deluded fantasy this ignoramus
> posted.
Received on Sun Nov 09 2003 - 10:01:15 CET