Re: Testing relational databases
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:55:52 GMT
Message-ID: <cIgsg.8485$pu3.189590_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> Cite some of his idiocy here, so we may examine it, please.
>
> Ah, so you observed it in the context of wall-to-wall unit tests, relentless
> code reviews, and frequent releases?
>
> (Gee, this feels like old times!)
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:55:52 GMT
Message-ID: <cIgsg.8485$pu3.189590_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Phlip wrote:
>>You found that idiot's nonsense important?!? Egad!
>
> Cite some of his idiocy here, so we may examine it, please.
I already did. Next time pay more attention. I won't repeat myself again: http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/3161496.htm
>>Deciding at whim to alter the logical design of a database (or of anything >>else for that matter) is sure to lead to something arbitrary and random. >>Having observed such randomness more often than not, I conclude it is >>altogether too common.
>
> Ah, so you observed it in the context of wall-to-wall unit tests, relentless
> code reviews, and frequent releases?
>
> (Gee, this feels like old times!)
Yes, I did. And in other contexts too.
How does the idiot Ambler address the observations Dijkstra made 37
years ago regarding the futility of relying on unit tests? See for
instance, EWD268:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD02xx/EWD268.html
Has the idiot demonstrated the least bit of awareness of Dijkstra's argument? Or does Ambler's writing suggest a more blissful condition? Received on Mon Jul 10 2006 - 01:55:52 CEST