Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

dawn wrote:
> JOG wrote:
> > No, I think the web is too entrenched now. It'd take a
> > revolution not an evolution.
>
> Like some ignorant, moronic girl trying to move the
> industry away from SQL, right?

Many people (perhaps everyone) would love a "better" SQL. That is not why you come across as ignorant, moronic, etc. Rather it is because you stubbornly and repeatedly refuse to differentiate between SQL and relational theory. Well that is a part, and only a part, of the reason.

> I remember someone telling me that we would still be
> running gopher ten years from now because there was so
> much there ('92 or '93). But, yes, a migration over time
> - we are not going to swap out either current www nor
> current sql-based solutions in an instant.

And, in case you stll have hope, they are not going to migrate to PICK either.

> Maybe a little, but the www is still a very large
> distributed database of sorts. It has structured data (in
> spite of what others might call it), persisted on
> secondary storage devices, accessed by people. There
> isn't a great query langauge, I'll grant. The requirements
> are not identical to those of a DBMS, but the model for
> the data ought to be taken seriously and moved forward
> accordingly.

Hehehe. "in spite of what others" might think, Dawn knows what's what and is here to tell YOU what to take seriously. That pretty much tells one all they need to know about the poor little midwest girl trying to get noticed by the world.

> I came here to learn and I have.

No you didn't. Stop repeating that lie over and over. In contradistinction, I actually did come here to learn and learned a lot. For example, I know that SQL != RM. A fact you continue not to grasp even after all these years.

> I have learned more about human nature than I really
> wanted to learn, but ah well.

I truly hope, Dawn, that you have learned more about yourself than you have about humans.

> I'm still pretty much on the unpopular side of most
> related discussions, but I can see a little better how my
> requirements should not be too far fetched for relational
> theorists

Do you see that they do /not care/ about /your/ requirements?

> (many already accept my 2VL approach, so they just need to
> dump the information principle and adopt lists ;-), even
> if still a ways from RM implementations.

Back to telling everyone what to do?

> > Nothing wrong with layers on top of RM
>
> If lists are in the data model employed by designers,
> developers, maintainers of software, then it is not "on
> top of the RM" it is a new model. So, we still differ on
> terminology.

No, Dawn, you are falling to grasp his simple point. That being there is no /need/ to make "a new model" since lists can be modeled already. You are simply refusing to accept that fact or such a solution and are trying to hide your /demands/ as innocent "terminology".

> > I'm a firm believer that we can, in the end, get
> > everything we want from building up theory without
> > resorting to diving in headfirst with ad-hoc models.
>
> That would please me. If I thought ad-hoc was the best
> way to go for the long haul, I wouldn't be reading cdt.
> But neither do I think the "look, there's a mathematical
> theory, let's go there" approach served the industry well.

Perhaps because you were not around and are ignorant of the industry /before/ the theory? Perhaps because all the stuff you rant about are results of failing to go with the theory? Perhaps because you fail to grasp those and related points regardless of reason, evidence, etc?

> > Its always just a case of clarifying and iterating
> > theory to get there. (i.e. Codd's legacy is certainly
> > not dead).
>
> I agree with the last statement. But I would add to the
> first statement something about how we need to refine our
> practices as well and not accept theory without testing it
> out to understand in terms of resources and quality just
> what we gain with any given theory before we ditch known
> best practices and jump on theory bandwagons. A theory,
> like relational theory, might be tight mathematically,
> but that is no proof that it is the best way to model
> propositions, for example. I might not have said that
> well, but I'm clicking to send anyway.

LOL. That paragraph was fantastically, beautifully ironic in so many ways. Were you are troll that would have be without question an elite coup de grace.

Oh by the way, are you ever going to apologize for calling some /people/ here rapists and terrorists?

• Keith -- Fraud 6