The Forum for Discussion about The Third Manifesto and Related Matters

You need to log in to create posts and topics.

Does a database need anything more than a storage-based type system?

Quote from dandl on April 14, 2020, 2:02 am
Quote from Erwin on April 13, 2020, 1:02 pm
Quote from Dave Voorhis on April 13, 2020, 8:16 am

If you're developing tools for others, "I've never seen an x therefore x is unnecessary" or "I've only ever needed x so x is all you need" is always the wrong approach.

Codd himself wrote down exactly the same argument against relations-as-domains in the very first paper.

If normalization as described above is to be applicable, the unnormalized collection of relations must satisfy the following conditions :
(1) The graph of interrelationships of the nonsimple domains is a collection of trees.
(2) No primary key has a component domain which is nonsimple.
The writer knows of no application which would require any relaxation of these conditions.

 

There are two absolutely consistent features of truly revolutionary ideas.

  1. They are initially rejected and resisted by highly competent people who are experts in the state of the art and the application of established knowledge
  2. About 99% of the time they are wrong, and rejection and resistance is what they need and deserve.

Due to recency bias you will easily be able to recount cases where the revolutionary idea was right: Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Schrödinger, etc; continental drift and Helicobacter pylori are two in my personal recollection.

You will not so easily be able to identify instances where it was wrong but there are far more, countless thousands of them. In my view this is one of the wrong ones, and I think I have about a 99% chance of being right.

I have no idea how what you wrote here relates to what I wrote and which what you wrote is supposedly in response to.

You also seem to have an absolutely unmatched talents for obscuring and obfuscating referents.  I have absolutely no idea what your last 'this' refers to.  But a more technical lexical analysis seems to suggest that it must be referring to a "revolutionary idea", and the only one involved in the discussion here is Codd's, so I'm baffled by what you say is "your view" on the matter.