holophrastic

you're boring. again in your circles for nothing. I'm done with you. you just don't read.

"why start late when one can start early, right?" -- because it costs to start early, and you may never need to go all the way. "we do not have a choice" -- we do. we can choose not to go relational, or we can choose to build our own. I do that. "Since MySQL (and most DBMSes) are labeled as relational databases then it follows that they are based on relational theory. Thus, we have no choice but to know the theory/science behind such technology." -- that doesn't follow. just because it's named, doesn't mean we need to care. And it can be named after a goal that wasn't achieved, or after a plan that wasn't accomplished, or even after something that it isn't. it's just a name. "they have first hand experience with problems that are very practical and real." -- most theory-driven people have been taught by people with first hand experience. most theory-driven people have nothing but other people's stories.

(this is good now) but I'm not saying that the strength of the hammer is based on its size. I just grabbed another hammer. It could have been a smaller one. BUt I originally chose the smaller one because it was easier to swing -- I'm a wimp. When it didn't work, I moved to the next easiest option. You'll recall that I started with my own shoe, so I wouldn't need to go and find the tool box. But I do agree with you (wow) that had I considered the hammer's size, and intentionally chose a bigger and "therefore" more suitable hammer, that we'd be in agreement regarding a database. But I didn't consider the hammer's size. Instead, I just went for random arbitrary choice. And I think most people do in most situations. In fact, I think everyone does in every situation when it comes to problems with what they believe to be not the core thing that they are doing. So a painter would choose the correct paint brush using theory, but someone using a paint brush as a door-stop would not care which paint brush they used -- even as it pertains to being a door stop. They'd just grab any brush and hope it worked. So when a web-site programmer grabs a database to house 10 kilobytes of data, he really doesn't care about the database in any real way -- it's all about the html to him -- so he doesn't do any theory effort at all. When he later starts storing thousands of records, then that becomes the real job, and theory starts to be beneficial. And when it grows further, then theory is required. That's the road that I took with my business. And it actually allowed me to get really creative and very innovative quite early-on, because I didn't get trapped by common mistakes just because they were common, nor by techniques that weren't known to be mistakes for another couple of years. I wasn't trapped in the same box as everyone else. It opened many doors for me. I also learned exactly which elements of the theory applied to precisely which problems I was having as I resolved them -- something that most theory-driven people never learn, because they never get to have those problems so close to them.

Dude, you're not listening at all. He's not using arithmetic at all. His house fell apart. No axioms. Totally obvious. The house fell. Your initial point is invalid, therefore your entire follow-up is meaningless. You can't argue by saying "you cannot deny that". That just means that you cannot consider anything. That makes you ignorant in the true meaning of the word -- you're ignoring everyone else. You've managed to say absolutely nothing, nor to give any counter examples to those given. That makes all of your posts useless to readers. So here's your last chance. I place a nail in some wood. I grab by shoe. I hit the nail with my shoe. Nothing happens. I get a hammer. I swing my hammer at a nail. I hit the nail on the head. The hammer breaks. I blame the hammer. I grab a second hammer. I swing the hammer. The hammer breaks. I grab a third hammer. I swing the hammer. The hammer works. The nail is embedded in the wood. I move on with my life. Absolutely zero effort was spent discerning why my shoe didn't work, nor why the first two hammers broke. It could have been anything. The hammers could have been defective. I may have been swinging them incorrectly. It didn't matter. I didn't understand anything about hammers, nor about shoes, nor about nails, nor about the strength of the wood. I just grabbed the next object in line and used it. Eventually, I won the day. Grabbing a bigger hammer is the a valid technique. And it requires zero theory of any kind. So, now it's your turn. Why don't you discuss my hammer story. Directly, not vaguely, and not dimissingly. Because it's a real story. And it occured last weekend.

And yet, you duplicated it for absolutely no apparent reason. Like I said, you can't read, and you're incapable of understanding what's presented to you. But it's evident that you've never actually been responsible for someone else's project for conception through completion and further through maintenance and continuation. So it's not suprising that you've got no practical application logic to your reasoning. It also makes sense that the only comments you can make are vague and sweeping rejections of entire posts. Like I said, Aliza is about as coherent as you are.

Of course I, and any sane person can, and has done so. I don't need to know that the calculator is broken, miscoded, or defective. I only need to know that the tool I used to accomplish a job produced a poor-quality result. The job didn't get done. That's enough for me to blame all of my tools and to go buy new tools. If the house collapses because the nails degraded, I don't need to know if they rusted, crumbled, corroded, or broke. I just need to not use those nails again. This is what I mean when I say that you don't think things through. I don't need to know that 2+2 != 5. I just need to know that my wallet is empty, or that the house crumbled. I need to know that using my tool was a bad idea, and then get a different tool next time. The second calculator won't likely fail. And if it does, then I'll very quickly say that calculators aren't proper tools, and I'll go back to my prior way of doing things. Welcome to the computer age. A great many people abandonned it. That's why. But again, you don't follow through on completely thoughts. And, by the way, I never called you a name. I called you a bot. That's an accusation, not a name.

See the loop that you're in? All because you don't understand the words "results" and "obvious". You don't put any effort into understanding what you're reading. And hence, you're useless in a conversation. You've just repeated one of your former posts. You're a bot.

Like I said, if you can't discerne knowlege from an argument, then you're done. You've given up long ago. If all you see is absurdity, then you're so far away from seeing what's there, that no one can show it to you; and you'll never see it. Pittiful really. Erline tables are used every day, every second, in hundreds of industries. And you're dismissing it as absurd. You've got absolutely zero to contribute beyond your very first comment -- because you haven't gained any knowledge nor understanding nor even perspective of the other arguments in the discussion. So you're nothing more than a one-trick pony, reiterating the same comment 161 times.

Your not following up on arguments made by fellow commenters is the problem. Such things are only irrelevant to you because you never explored them enough to understand them. If you don't understand the arguments being made against you, and you don't take the time to learn, then you're done; plain and simple. And that, is most definitely your fault. You are incapable of learning.

I did. with all of your theory, you don't know what erline tables are, and you don't know what clairvoyant means. So your way of doing things has failed you in these ways. Hence, your "theory" doesn't work at all. We can't have a fruitful discussion, because you lack the practical ability to apply yourself to said conversation in any useful way..

Umm, learn the language. I am most definitely "clairvoyant". Can't you see what the word actually means? It's not hard. Welcome to your theory. Have you "discovered" erline tables yet? Or are you still working on theorizing how one would build a search engine that could find terms by phoenetic spelling? You theory doesn't work. At all.

You can say "maybe" all you like. But in this case, it's a definite "no". We're not talking about "in the first place". We're talking about now.

Because there is additional effort to using theory in building websites, and I'm telling you that additional effort isn't beneficial enough to anyone when compared to the time, effort, and resources required to do so. That's why. For every added effort, there is a cost, and there is a benefit. Here's your theory for you. If you benefits don't out-weigh the costs, you shouldn't expend the efforts. See, now that's theory. And after 15+ years of building web-sites, I can tell you quite expertly that it's not worth even considering theory when building web-sites. The following reasons are first to come to mind. - web-sites are virtual, and central, so they can be changed/fixed/corrected/adjusted at any time. so mistakes aren't permanent. - new technologies appear frequently, so old code gets replaced anyway, even if it was "right" when it was written. - it's a very new industry of 20 years old, the modern web is only 10 years old. most of the theories aren't established/perfected/proven. - the market/industry/consumer-base/client-base shifts so radically that needs and requirements and ratios change sporadically with each project. so any attempt to create an equivalency across projects is futile, or just plain incorrect.

My not helping you find something, is not misinformation. And you have no evidence to the contrary, because you have no evidence at all. Google is not all knowing, and you don't know how to search for something that you can't spell. Sounds like a deficiency on your part. I'm not interested in teach ing. I'm not a teacher.

Wow, so I give you the phoenetic spelling spelling of a term, and you aren't willing to go beyond Google. Nice. You see, I don't need to give a reference when I discuss something that's been around for 100 years, and used in probably 40% of business industries. You're asking me to teach you about them, but you aren't willing to do the first step to figure out what they are. But you did that quoting thing again. If you can't learn that, then I don't see how you can learn the other.