Re: N. Wirth
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 11:01:48 GMT
Message-ID: <w406g.2556$A26.68483_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> I sure hope not. Tutorial D is meant to implement the Date's
> Relational Model, which is equivalent to first-order logic, which in
> turn is provably less powerful than SQL. Why would anybody want to
> bother with a language that's both cumbersome and weaker than what
> people will be working with?
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 11:01:48 GMT
Message-ID: <w406g.2556$A26.68483_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
David Fetter wrote:
> Jon Heggland <jon.heggland_at_idi.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>>David Cressey wrote: >> >>>I'll repeat a comment I made a little while ago: Someone should do >>>for OOP what Pascal did for structured programming. Come up with a >>>suitable language for use as a teaching tool. >>> >>>Someone should do the same for the interface language to a >>>relational database. >> >>Something like Tutorial D, you mean?
>
> I sure hope not. Tutorial D is meant to implement the Date's
> Relational Model, which is equivalent to first-order logic, which in
> turn is provably less powerful than SQL. Why would anybody want to
> bother with a language that's both cumbersome and weaker than what
> people will be working with?
Another self-aggrandizing ignorant?!? Don't we have enough of those around here already? Plonk. Received on Wed May 03 2006 - 13:01:48 CEST