[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Dann Corbit") wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Seun Osewa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 11:52 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [HACKERS] Dreaming About Redesigning SQL > > > > > > Hi, > > > > This is for relational database theory experts on one hand > > and imlementers of real-world alications on the other hand. > > If there was a chance to start again and design SQL afresh, > > for best cleaness/power/performance what changes would you > > make? What would your query language (and the underlying > > database concept) look like? > > > > Seun Osewa > > PS: I should want to post my ideas too for review but more > > experienced/qualified people should come first > > I imagine you have read the 3rd database manifesto by Codd. I think > he's gone off the deep end a bit.
Dann, you are showing your ignorance. While Dr. Codd recently died, if you think he wrote a third database manifesto, you have definitely gone off the deep end yourself. > You don't just throw away a trillion > dollars worth of effort and tools to make things mathematically > orthogonal. Again, you are showing your ignorance. Nobody has ever suggested anything even remotely resembling the above. > However, on some things he is clearly right. For instance, null values > are evil. Dr. Codd believed we need two NULLs. You ascribe correctness to the one thing I think he clearly got wrong. > Programmers understand it That's an absurd assertion. > Therefore, his idea of using default values instead and never using null > is a good one. That is not his idea. > If SQL vendors would follow the ANSI/ISO standard to the letter, and > implement the latest iteration, that would solve all of the problems > that SQL tool users have to face. Upon what do you base this ridiculous opinion? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]