Re: relational reasoning -- why two tables and not one?
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:59:49 GMT
Message-ID: <VcSBm.48254$Db2.11508_at_edtnps83>
>
> That's certainly one type of mysticism. In this case, I think we have
> someone acting more like Alice with Humpty Dumpty. The name "donation"
> means exactly what the person who applied it to a table meant at the time.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:59:49 GMT
Message-ID: <VcSBm.48254$Db2.11508_at_edtnps83>
Bob Badour wrote:
> paul c wrote:
...
>> I wouldn't argue if you associated my use of "mystical" with your use >> of that "anthropo..." word I can't spell.
>
> That's certainly one type of mysticism. In this case, I think we have
> someone acting more like Alice with Humpty Dumpty. The name "donation"
> means exactly what the person who applied it to a table meant at the time.
Mysticism certainly encourages wilfullness and false certainty. Then there is the Emperorès New Clothes which plays on crowd psychology, probably fear too, fear of disagreeing about anything when one is basically pretending to be master of a field as long as other field experts arenèt around. There is surprisingly little honest curiousity in this field, except among the true newcomers, usually practically none from newcomers with a non-db programming. It has been years since I saw anybody ask why the result of a relational op is one relation. Received on Fri Oct 16 2009 - 05:59:49 CEST