Re: Argument for 1NF by counter-example

"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:DStfd.10431$R05.4156_at_attbi_s53...
> "Tony Douglas" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message
news:bcb8c360.0410260632.64438b61_at_posting.google.com...
> >
> > I'd suggest that *because* of the efforts of the various SQL:2003
> > standards committees, we'd best look elsewhere for the next level of
> > database work. Some will drone on about Tutorial D, but I can't admit
> > to being a fan. Personally, I'd like to see the next generation
> > working from a declarative direction; either from Prolog or
> > alternatively something like Haskell plus relations. Haskell +
> > relations would have the distinct advantage of giving us a very
> > flexible, working, proven and mathematically respectable type system
> > too.
>
> I like the TutD algebra.
>
> I like Haskell's algebraic data types, parametric
> polymorphism, and list comprehensions, but I'm not sure if one really
> needs algebraic data types if one has relations, nor am I sure about
> parametric polymorphism when one has relations, which are
> polymorphic by nature. List comprehensions are awesomely
> cool but provide nothing that a good relational language gives
> you. (Although the haskell people clearly understand reduce
> better than the relational people, the relational people have
> a better handle on map and filter, which are just simple cases
> of select/join.) Do we need union types? Dunno. I'm pretty
> sure we need enumerated types.
>
> Prolog seems like a good answer to the recursive queries problem.
> You get a nice *general* solution for transitive closure, without
> a special-purpose tclose or connect-by or whatever. You can
> also do reflexive closure, and some other cool stuff.
>
> Do we need subtyping polymorphism? Not clear; maybe
> the generalize/specialize techniques of relational are enough.
>
> Do we need a better set of relational operators? You bet!
>
> Do we need some kind of nested relations? I'm pretty sure we do.
>
> We also need a module system. What about some kind of dynamic
> dispatch? The OO single-dispatch solution to this has an excellent
> power-weight ratio, and also some kind of object mechanism
> is a great solution to a number of different modularity concerns.
> I'm still not clear how objects (specificially, non-constant fields)
> interact with relations, though.
>
> Just some thoughts. I'm working on a design.
>
>
> Marshall

So, let's just go with Java then? I'm in! Cheers --dawn Received on Tue Oct 26 2004 - 23:15:26 CEST