Re: XQuery (and XML) vs LISP

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:31:14 GMT, "David Cressey" <dcressey_at_verizon.net> wrote:

>"Mark Johnson" <102334.12_at_compuserve.com> wrote in
>
>> And that's a straw man. That's not what I said. But at least we agree
>> that the examples typically shown are pointlessly trivial. Actually,
>> it's a common complaint against academics.
>
>In reality, it's a common complaint against introductory material in almost
>any sphere of endeavor.

     True. Now, where is the next level? Often, it is absent.

     A while back, I was reading a book on TCP/IP. A program had a comment that error checking was omitted for clarity. Fine. I ran the program, and it happened to work. I was aware though that errors can occur, and my question was then what errors could occur and how to handle them. The book did not have a version with error handling. Dropped ball.

>They introduce the alphabet and the numbers from one to ten on Sesame
>Street. The examples they use are "pointlessly trivial", when viewed from
>the perspective of a CPA who reads Shakespeare for pleasure. But they
>aren't pointlessly trivial from the perspective of the kids who are watching
>and learning.

     True, but what if combining letters into words was never covered?

>I would expect a good schema to introduce relational concepts to consist of
>less than 20 tables. I would expect it to be somewhat simpler that
>something people get paid to do. I'm surprised that you expect otherwise.

     I would hope so. I would also like to see a more complex, more real version for the intermediate level, say: "Here is a simple invoicing system used by a client of mine, a small manufacturer's rep. The introductory database is a simplified version. Let us examine the differences between the two and why they are there. . . ."

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko Received on Mon Feb 20 2006 - 23:08:00 CET