Re: Issues with the logical consistency of The Third Manifesto

From: Jan Hidders <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:19:33 GMT
Message-ID: <9KRld.23390$J75.1263650_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>

Jonathan Leffler wrote:
>
> So, I disagree with Gittens' claimed demolition of 1GB - I do not
> consider that he has proved his point at all.

But demolishing 1GB was not his point. In his own words:

"I think it important to state explicitely, that my claim in this regard, is not that Date and Darwen are wrong in their opinions. My claim, in this regard, is that the substantiation they provide as justication for their statement that the alleged great blunders are indeed great blunders is rather weak, relative to the high standard they claim to be central to their work."

Jan Hidders

Received on Mon Nov 15 2004 - 00:19:33 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Neo: "Re: Demo: Db For Dummies"
Previous message: Neo: "Re: Demo: Db For Dummies"
In reply to: Jonathan Leffler: "Re: Issues with the logical consistency of The Third Manifesto"
In reply to Jonathan Leffler: "Re: Issues with the logical consistency of The Third Manifesto"
Next in thread: Costin Cozianu: "1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted"
Reply: Costin Cozianu: "1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message