|
|
Posted by drawnai on 04/25/06 20:31
--CELKO-- wrote:
> Yes; shot you and replace you with a programmer who has read the first
> 10 pages of **any** RDBMS book. You are posting realllllllly baaaaad
> questions. Please take some time to catch up over the weekend before
> you ask us to do your job for you again.
>
> SQL is a set-orient language. Tables -- by definition -- have no
> ordering. That is the nature of a set. Have you ever read Dr. Codd's
> 12 rules for RDBMS/ Look up the Information Principle: all
> relationships are shown as values in columns. Ordering is a
> relationship, so you need a column(s) for it.
>
> If you do not know who Dr. Codd is or his rules, then you are like a
> Geometry student who never heard of Euclid.
When faced with crass pointless comments like this, it's unsurprising
that
software engineering doesn't advance as fast as it could. Relational
theory is
no cleverer than Codd, (and maybe Date) was. They weren't gods. They
put forward
software engineering maybe only twice as far as Straustrup put it back
with
the abomination of c++.
I'm happy to decline to Bruce Lee. No matter how good a technique, be
it a
punch or a throw or a kick, (or relational theory, or xml, or
hibernate, or a
standards document) it becomes a weakness when one becomes obsessed
with it.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|