"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Quoth "Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gene Wirchenko > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Seun Osewa) wrote: > >> > >>[snip] > >> > >>>Sometimes I wonder why its so important to model data in the "rela- > >>>tional way", to think of data in form of sets of tuples rather than > >>>tables or lists or whatever. I mean, though its elegant and based > >>>on mathematical principles I would like to know why its the _right_ > >>>model to follow in designing a DBMS (or database). The way my mind > >>>sees it, should we not rather be interested in what works? > >> > >> How do you know it works? Without the theory and model, you > >>really do not. > >> > > And don't other databases have both theory and model? > > > > It's just that all the academics have been brainwashed into thinking > > this is true only for relational, so that's what they teach to > > everyone else, and the end result is that all research is ploughed > > into a model that may be (I didn't say "is") bankrupt. Just like the > > academics were brainwashed into thinking that microkernels were the > > be-all and end-all - until Linus showed them by practical example > > that they were all idiots :-) > > In mathematics as well as in the analysis of computer algorithms, it > is typical for someone who is trying to explain something new to try > to do so in terms that allow the gentle reader to do as direct a > comparison as possible between the things with which they are familiar > (e.g. - in this case, relational database theory) and the things with > which they are perhaps NOT familiar (e.g. - in this case, MV > databases). > > Nobody seems to have been prepared to explain the MV model in adequate > theoretical terms as to allow the gentle readers to compare the theory > behind it with the other theories out there. > > I'm afraid that does not reflect very well on either those lauding MV > or those trashing it. > > - Those lauding it have not made an attempt to show why the theory > behind it would support it being preferable to the other models > around. > > I hear some vague "Oh, it's not about models; it's about language" > which doesn't get to the heart of anything. > > - And all we get from Bob Badour are dismissive sound-bites that > _don't_ explain why he should be taken seriously. Indeed, the > sharper and shorter he gets, the less credible that gets. > > There are no pointers to "Michael Stonebraker on Why Pick Is Not My > Favorite Database." Brian Kernighan felt the issues with Pascal > were important enough that he wrote a nice, approachable paper that > quite cogently describes the problems with Standard > Pascal. <http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-on-pascal.html> He nicely > summarizes it with 9 points that fit on a sheet of paper. > > If Bob wanted people to take him really seriously about this, and > has done all the research to back up the points that are apparently > so obvious to him, then it should surely be _easy_ to write up "Nine > Reasons Pick Isn't My Favorite Database System." > > And just as people have been pointing back to Kernighan's paper on > Pascal for over 20 years, folks could point back to the "Pick" > essay. > > But apparently it is much too difficult for anyone to present any > _useful_ discourse on it.
How many times do I have to repeat the same points? I dislike Pick because it lacks logical identity, confuses the physical and the logical, lacks a robust query language, lacks physical independence, lacks logical independence and damages brains. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster