Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

Bob Badour wrote:
> erk wrote:
>
> > dawn wrote:
> >
> >>Perhaps it would be more precise to say that they "threw the baby out
> >>with the bathwater." I found arguments, but no emperical data, that
> >>showed the relational model to be beneficial to those using it. If you
> >>are aware of any emperical data, particularly any that shows that the
> >>RM is more flexible over time than either MUMPS or PICK that predate
> >>it, I would really like to see that.
> >
> > It doesn't exist.
>
> Bullshit! Look, if you are going to engage the ignorant cranks, at least
> call them on their bullshit. Don't swallow it!

I'm not swallowing any arguments about flaws in the RM, but I don't know of evidence for the benefits of RM that would fit the definition of "empirical data" she seems to be using. Then again, that sort of data is also lacking for the benefits of any programming language, operating system, etc., making every decision on every technology similarly "arbitrary," and reducing the entire thing to nonsense. That line of argument is a rabbit's hole, so I ceded the argument - "it" (meaning what she's looking for) doesn't exist, though it has no bearing on the arguments.

None of this has any bearing on my knowledge that the RM is superior, both objectively (via logic, thought experiments, reading, etc.) and in my personal experience. But I can't call that "empirical data" in the sense in which she means it.

• erk