Re: The Fact of relational algebra (was Re: Clean Object Class Design -- What is it?)

Hi Jesper,

(Large portions of orginal post have been snipped without notice).

> No, I don't believe in faith!!! I believe you completely misunderstood me.
That is what
> I'm saying we should *not* do. I would suggest you try read that Wegner
and the Minsky
> paper I gave you. This may elaborate some of the things I'm trying to say.

I will try - but round tuits are in short supply as always. <g>

> I don't think the relational theory is bad. I just want to argue that
large-scale and
> distributed information architectures can *only* be build and understood
by supplementing
> this strict reductionist approach (that is the strict deterministic
mathematical approach
> the traditional relational theory uses to enforce database integrity) with
other
> approaches. That's all.

Well, so long as this "supplementation" you refer to doesn't invalidate the mathematical foundations underpinning the relational model I'm all for it. And I only wish to apply relational theory to persistent data stores (databases) - I understand that large-sacle distributed information architectures have many more dimensions than just that.

> I understand that. Actually, I think it's fine to use predicate logic, set
theory and
> suchlike. However, *only* doing that and separating the "thing" through
some strict
> logical model, will not take us far.

Agree entirely.

>
> > Other than inspired ad-hocery by renegade
> > individuals that is, which I have little faith in.
>
> Oh, so there is the relational theory and everything else is just
ad-hocery. I see now,
> you really have a pure reductionist gene in you. Well, if that's you
philosophy, then
> there is not much more to discuss I guess. It seems you have already made
up your
> mind then.

Well, no. I don't believe that to be a fair appraisal of my position. Ad-hocery has it's place - definitely. But it is, by definition, without theoretical basis. My position is that we need theoretical bases for our architectural work, or it will not be able to progress. That's all.

> That's sad, because I would be happy to discuss with you and see if we
could find out 'how
> deep this rabbit hole goes'. I believe we both could learn a lot from
that. But, if you
> simply refuse that anything else than relational theory is what one could
call fundamental
> then (to be completely honest) I have no faith in this discussion anymore.
I mean, what
> are there to discuss then? Anyway, it's a free country, so if you simply
refuse to be
> where the cool and fun stuff is going to happen, that's entirely up to you
:-)

Cool and fun stuff is all well and good. It won't really succeed unless it has some sound theoretical basis to it. Not necessarily relational mind you.

> In a world ruled by the latest hype and a bunch of
> methodology extremists that seem to refuse to communicate with each other,
> the only winner will be SUN, Oracle and maybe Microsoft, not us!

Absolutely agree. And that is precisely why I want to see sound theoretical underpinnings for things - otherwise they really are just hype. And most methodologies have _no_ theoretical basis to them, and are more of a religious nature than anything.

> But (I tell you) don't you come crawling the day your screwed up no good
centralized
> deterministic strict predicate-logic/set based ugly and busted relational
database breaks
> down or can't scale. Because I will not help you (at least not unless you
have an awfully
> lot of $, or maybe if you offer me a cold draught beer ;-)

Aww, gee. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to get Larry, Bill or Scott to help me then. They seem to have all the answers! <g>

> I like to apologize for my language. It's just that I've recently been in
the cinema
> watching Rush Hour 2 and they (especially Chris Tucker) have an awfully
bad language.

Yes, and so you should, you f***ing d***head a**hole s***head p**ck.. How dare you sully our pure minds with your unexpurgated filth! I've a good mind to leave you out of my will now! (I'm thinking maybe I should cut down on the red ones - what do you think?)

> Anyway is was nice discussing with you.

ditto!

cheers,

gary Received on Mon Oct 29 2001 - 02:16:22 CET