Re: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface

Ken Tilton wrote:
> topmind wrote:
> > vc wrote:
> >
> >>Neo wrote:
> >>
> >>>Below is an example script for an experimental db (in development) that
> >>>can store both data and code.
> >>>
> >>>Unlike typical databases, data is not stored using a table/record
> >>>methodology, but via nodes where each node can connect to any other
> >>>node, in a manner similar to neurons in the human brain.
> >>
> >>
> >>"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history."
> >
> >
> > I used to store snippets of code or subroutine calls in the database
> > during my ExBase days. Generally they were refered to as "control
> > tables":
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/cntrl1.htm
> >
> > However, it is best to have a dynamically-typed RDB for such, and only
> > SqLite comes close to this feature that I know of.
> >
> > But, what is wrong with tables such that the Lisp proponent does not
> > want to use them?
>
> The world is not columns and rows, so you are forcing an unnatural
> representation onto your data. Bad DBA, bad!

The world is a big tangled graph/network. There is no inherent lasting sureshot order to it. However, when we model it, it is tough for humans to deal with it as a big tangled string blob. Thus, we impose organizational abstractions to model stuff yet be able to grok our models as humans. Hierarchies are another example of just such an artificial construct. Why do we put all our documents in tree-shaped folders and when the world is generally not tree-shaped? Answer: because we would go nuts without some kind of ordering.

If you can propose something better than relational tables for organizing stuff, I am all ears. But remember:

1. It must be flexible
2. It must be fairly easy for humans to grok (understand, manage, sift)

(Trees tend to fail #1. They cannot easily deal with lots of orthogonal categories and relative/custom views.)

>
> :)
>
> ken
>
>

-T- Received on Thu Mar 30 2006 - 04:18:09 CEST