Re: theory and practice: ying and yang

On Sat, 28 May 2005 03:30:55 GMT, "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:

>>>So you are asserting that IBM, Oracle and MS SQL-DBMS
>>>have no right to be termed relational?
>>
>> They have legal right but their products are not relational.
>
>Their products take advantage of the RM since 1979.

But they are not relational. Your answers are almost always irrelevant.

>> No, that is due to other reasons. SQL DBMS are ill designed but they
>> still are the best we have.
>
>
>Of course they are, because they have to a large degree
>(not a small degree) embraced the principles of the RM
>according to Codd - not CJ Date.

Small and large are relative terms. What is an objective fact is that SQL DBMS violate some the most fundamental principles of the Relational Model.

>>>Date ignores the proofs of Godel and Chaitin.
>>
>> This is plain nonsensical.
>
>
>Codd, not Date, was the author of the RM.
>Codd reserves a place for nulls.
>Date does not.
>End of story.

Completely irrelevant again. Nulls have nothing to do with Godel's proofs.

Nulls were probably the biggest Codd's mistake.

>Today's RDBMS software follows the RM of Codd,
>not the RM as portrayed by Date et al.

Again wrong. Codd's interpretation of the Relational Model does not have a place for multisets nor many other SQL aberrations.

>This is what you make of it dude.
>Just behave yourself in public.

???

Regards Received on Tue May 31 2005 - 13:58:25 CEST