Re: The Null Problem is a Non-issue

On 2015-01-13, Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 13 January 2015 08:40:04 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>>> On 2015-01-12, Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 12 January 2015 18:36:28 UTC+11, Derek Asirvadem wrote:
>>>>
>>>> a.3. Sybase & DB2 have a session-level configuration setting for ANSI_NULL
>>>> ... (Teradata has a similar mechanism, but I have forgotten the details.)
>>>
>>> MSSQL, being the illegitimate child of Sybase, has exactly the same
>>> configuration parameter.
>>>
>>> Informix, as I recall it has a slightly more difficult method, but
>>> results in the same thing.
>>>
>>> That completes the set of five Commercial RDBMS.
>>
>> Do you have a specific reason for excluding Oracle? And if so, what is
>> it please?
>>
>
> Eric
>
> *You* are asking *me* a question ?

Apparently so.

> Although I am willing to be charitable, noting your politeness, given
> your previous behaviour, I do have to step carefully.
>
> So let me get this right.
>
> 1. I named a category: Commercial RDBMS, which has five named members.
> You noticed Oracle wasn't in it. You want to know why. That means you
> think Oracle should be in it. Otherwise there is no question to ask.

It means, minimally, that I know that a lot of other people think Oracle should be in it. I don't think that makes much difference though.

> 2. And you don't know the answer. Otherwise there is no question to ask.

Indeed.

> 3. And you are asking someone who does know the answer. Which, if
> provided, would be an education, your level of knowledge in the subject
> would be elevated. An education which you did not have, when you asked
> the question, before I supplied the answer.

I don't think you can actually use the word "education" in exactly that way. However I am prepared to believe that, like Humpty Dumpty, you are paying it extra.

> Could you please confirm the above, have I got that right ?

Well, yes, except that the answer which you know is why you hold the opinion that Oracle does not belong in the list. You give the impression of thinking that it is a self-evident fact, but I can see only opinion unless there is justification. You will be not a confirmed authority graciously handing down facts, but a human being explaining your opinion. If you don't like that feel free to ignore me henceforth and I will try to live with it.

I am happy to at least start with a short explanation. As for education and elevation, that depends on how I respond to the answer. I could

1. accept it as a demonstrated truth
2. accept it as a plausible possible truth requiring clarification or elaboration
3. disagree with it and be able to provide evidence to back up my disagreement
4. disagree by instinct, which would presumably be valid grounds for discontinuing the conversation.

Obviously I can not specify which of these will apply until I have seen the answer.

> There are *many* *specific* reasons, not *one* as you speculate, for the
> exclusion. I am not so charitable as to enumerate them, for someone who
> based on past behaviour, does not acknowledge the delivery of education;
> or confirm that an elevation has occurred.

As I said, a short explanation will do. I am not asking for enormous amounts of you time, if you really believe that Oracle does not belong on the list you should be able to produce a simple and reasonably convincing argument in very little time.

Thank you,

Eric

-- 
ms fnd in a lbry