fenway Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 You have it backwards -- if you choose to use their DBMS product, it's up to you, the programmer, to learn to use it correctly. Otherwise, write your own, or pick a different product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebmigue Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Otherwise, write your own... I might just do that. Give me a lifetime. lol. , or pick a different product. What is to pick from if they are all the same, conceptually speaking? But still one wonders: What happened in the last 40 years w/c didn't see an acceptable implementation of the Relational Model? 40 long years. Big, rich, companies with the best computer engineers at their employment. The best minds in the industry. And still we are stuck with SQL, the language from the 70's. One wonders. Because of lack of appreciation for relational theory, I strongly suspect. The point is, if all DB users/programmers are aware of theory, they will what they expect from products. Thus, there is pressure. If there is pressure, those companies with resources will be forced to cater for the market's demands. It's more efficient that way. Rather than go lone wolf. That would be the last resort I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebmigue Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I will correct what I said. There are acceptable implementations (DBMS) back then and even now. But they are not as popular. But then again popularity does not necessarily mean correctness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenway Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Ah, "correctness" -- that's like trying to claim that certain sorting algorithm are poor choices just because in "the general case" they might be slow. It's a futile effort -- that's computer science, not computer programming -- they're not the same. My algorithm doesn't need to be "proven correct" by mathematical induction in order to execute a for() loop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebmigue Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Ah, "correctness" -- that's like trying to claim that certain sorting algorithm are poor choices just because in "the general case" they might be slow. Again, where did you get that? By correctness I do not mean that sort of thing. I mean correctness in the formal sense. It's a futile effort -- that's computer science, not computer programming -- they're not the same. Oh no. Someone at MIT will be very mad at reading this. My algorithm doesn't need to be "proven correct" by mathematical induction in order to execute a for() loop. Math. Induction can not prove whether or not a "for loop" will execute. That is its assumption. Does that mean Mathematical Induction is useless? Of course, not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenway Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 MIT is full of people who don't know how to program computers for day-to-day real-world scenarios -- that's not their job. Their job is to solve problems we're going to have 50 years from now, not program silly websites. Trust me, I've taken those computer science courses when algorithms needed formal proofs -- sure, it's a great mental exercise, but nothing more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebmigue Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 MIT is full of people who don't know how to program computers for day-to-day real-world scenarios -- that's not their job. Their job is to solve problems we're going to have 50 years from now, not program silly websites. That is a depressing opinion, considering that most users here are web programmers. Also depressing for folks there since what you said implied that they are useless (at least now). Trust me, I've taken those computer science courses when algorithms needed formal proofs -- sure, it's a great mental exercise, but nothing more. Again, you are degrading useful knowledge. You are practically saying that Pythagoras's theorem was "just a mental exercise - nothing more." A typical preposterous opinion. Sure we don't need formal proofs everyday. Someone already, most likely, took care of it for us. But without that someone, we can never be sure of what we are doing. We owe the reliability of the enterprise of computer programming to them, whether you recognise it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenway Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Why is it depressing to suggest that visionaries are too busy to deal with mundane, day-to-day tasks? Why do you think that not working out the proof, or taking advantage of an edge case that breaks the rules of a theory, detracts in any way from the theory itself? That's like suggesting that using special relativity is an insult to general relativity. It's not -- it's easier, and that why we use it. Approximations are useful. So are hacks, workarounds, short-cuts, and hard-coding. Real-world solutions to real-world problems. Academia isn't subject to those constraints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebmigue Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Why is it depressing to suggest that visionaries are too busy to deal with mundane, day-to-day tasks? Men of science are not visionaries, like the "prophets." They deal with very real scientific problems. Why do you think that not working out the proof, or taking advantage of an edge case that breaks the rules of a theory, detracts in any way from the theory itself? That's like suggesting that using special relativity is an insult to general relativity. Such can not be inferred from my posts. It's not -- it's easier, and that why we use it. Approximations are useful. So are hacks, workarounds, short-cuts, and hard-coding. Real-world solutions to real-world problems. Academia isn't subject to those constraints. Yes. Hacks, approximations, work-arounds are useful. No question. But only if the instances on w/c they are applied are still the state-of-affairs. Fix a certain bug, and the workaround goes away. Refine an implementation, and the hack becomes needless. Implement a certain DBMS according to the principles of the underlying theory it professes it implements - in this case Relational Theory - then all those things goes away. The unacceptable thing is that a certain DBMS labels itself "relational" where in fact it is not; it is a network model; or "table" model. That's misleading people. We should start calling things as they are; and implement things as it should be. It is not an easy task of course. Unintelligent replies makes it harder even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenway Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Look, maybe you've missed the entire point of these forums. No one is looking for a proselytizing theorist -- they're looking for real answers to real-world solutions. If you want to suggest they continue to read up on their theory to improve their understanding of the underlying situation -- by all means, go ahead. A fundamental grasps of basic concepts and tenets is always valuable. But to call my replies "unintelligent" -- when you can't even grasp the basis of the OP's question -- is a bit much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebmigue Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 But to call my replies "unintelligent" -- when you can't even grasp the basis of the OP's question -- is a bit much. Look. Sorry if it came that way. I sincerely respect your position here. My posts are nothing personal. They are not directed to the person, but to the posts themselves. If I am missing the point of these forums, then again, I apologise. But I am directed by conscience to at least remind some that there is also another way of doing things. IMO, if we don't do it that way, we restrain the possible growth of the community. I apologise for any misconduct. But I stress: I do not attack the person; I discuss the ideas and posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenway Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Not to worry -- I don't take them as personal -- but, in general, your posts tend to have a "holier than thou" tone that often neglects to address the OP's objective -- getting the problem solved. If you review most of my post over the last few years, I'm the first to object when OP's have put forward suggestions or code or designs that are counter-intuitive, counter-productive, or down-right flawed. But if they insist, I'll reluctantly provide them with a solution to their issue. I can't make anyone listen -- no one can -- so I can offer advice, nothing more. The rest is either utter silence or a workaround. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebmigue Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I am glad to know that. Yes, I am sorry, for such tone. I guess it is my writing style. And I guess I had my share of reproaching people in a not-so-nice way. I will work on it. But, I will always advice people of the relevance of relational theory, especially if their problem is a direct effect of a lack of acquaintance of such theory. Sure, I'd give working code. But always with theory as its guide; meaning, its possible pitfalls, the reasons for avoiding some features, etc - in short, hacks, workarounds, that might bring SQL (and MySQL) closer to the relational model. I hope you won't have a problem with that. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenway Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Not at all -- just balance your responses and people won't see you as a "preacher". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.