Re: Why is "group by" obligatory in SQL?
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:43:08 GMT
Message-ID: <Momam.37978$PH1.29968_at_edtnps82>
>> Great post, Cimode, Djikstra as profound as ever, this stuff bears
>> repeating every so often.
>> Too bad so little remains of the history of db language development
>> from the 1970's, I think there are still lessons to be learned from
>> the scanty archives. The motivations of those days must be murky to
>> anybody who didn't grow up with assembler languages, in fact I'd say
>> they remaiin murky for most of the people who were there.
>> In the commercial world of that time there was a lot of emphasis on
>> so-called 'structured programming techniques', which we know today is
>> just a form of language mysticism, at least insofar as it disguises
>> the real programmer's interface.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:43:08 GMT
Message-ID: <Momam.37978$PH1.29968_at_edtnps82>
Bob Badour wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>
>> Cimode wrote:
> > <snip> >
>> Great post, Cimode, Djikstra as profound as ever, this stuff bears
>> repeating every so often.
> > Dijkstra is da bomb! > >
>> Too bad so little remains of the history of db language development
>> from the 1970's, I think there are still lessons to be learned from
>> the scanty archives. The motivations of those days must be murky to
>> anybody who didn't grow up with assembler languages, in fact I'd say
>> they remaiin murky for most of the people who were there.
> ...
>> In the commercial world of that time there was a lot of emphasis on
>> so-called 'structured programming techniques', which we know today is
>> just a form of language mysticism, at least insofar as it disguises
>> the real programmer's interface.
> > Did you intend the irony? > ...