Re: Fabian Pascal and RDBMS deficiencies in fully implementing

On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:51:57PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 6/13/06, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> >> SQL was a quick and dirty hack (Systems R and R* needed some way
> >> to interface with data) with multiple deficiencies recognized and
> >> documented right within the very first paper by its own authors.
> >
> >Perfection isn't a human attribute.  There isn't a whole lot of
> >convincing evidence that it's a divine attribute.  Did you have a
> >point to make?
>
> so your logic is that since perfection is not a human attribute it
> follows that it is not worthwhile finding better alternatives to
> existing methods of data management?

If there are better alternatives, they will need to show some
real-world attributes, not mathematically-inspired fantasies, because
they're not "better" unless actual people in real-world situations can
use them.

> >SQL had something that relational algebra/relational calculus did
> >not have, which is that somebody without a math degree can stare at
> >it a short while and *do* something with it right away.  That it
> >also has other properties that are extremely useful and powerful
> >(the ability to specify states of ignorance using NULL, do
> >arithmetic, use aggregates, etc.) is what has made it such a
> >smashing success.
>
> SQL is a smashing success because at the time it was invention it
> was better than it's alternatives.

And it still is.  If you have evidence to the contrary that you can
point to in real-world software that's actually deployed, please show
it.

> It also received heavy backing from major software shops of the
> time.  It's relitive merit to relational applications were not a
> factor here.  Compared to ISAM, for example, SQL is an improvement
> for most applications.  Also, I think the relational model is easier
> to understand precisely because it is so grounded in
> mathematics...

Date's Relational Model is not the only one out there.  Codd wrote
about one which was different, as have Stonebraker, Libkin, etc.  That
Date and his dour crew have spent more time yelling louder is not by
itself (or any other way) a recommendation for the model they endorse.
It's *certainly* not a logical argument for that model.

> the terse mathematical notation commonly used may be difficult for
> some to follow but it could be 'dumbed down' as it were for easier
> consumption.

Again, if you have a piece of software you can point to that does this
thing, please do so.  What might be done is an interesting question,
but what hasn't been done despite hugely many opportunities is also a
significant piece of information.

> >Now, there's another thing that makes it amazingly hard to
> >displace: imagining what would be better *enough* to justify the
> >many millions of people-years and even more billions of dollars
> >needed to move away from it.  Despite Date's many whines over the
> >decades, his still-vaporware Relational Model doesn't even vaguely
> >approximate that criterion.
>
> So you are justifying investment in 'A' as not to consider
> application or consideration of 'B'.  While this may be an agument
> not to drop everything and move to 'B', 'B' should still be
> considered for long term advantages it might provide.

Please feel free.

I've read Date, Darwen and Pascal's stuff over time, and it looks to
me like the increasingly strident whines of other frustrated
ideologues whose theories don't match reality.  I take it as
significant that nobody's managed to implement this extreme purist
model in actual software, as the computing world--academic, commercial
and FLOSS--has had decades to do it.

> Anyways, I think Date and Pascal are pragmatic about this particular
> point.

Could you quote me something somewhere that shows evidence of
pragmatism on either of their parts?  Preferably something from the
current decade, although something from earlier would be OK, too.

> I think what they are concerned about it the combination of social
> factors which cause illogical arguments such as the above to get so
> much traction.

"Social factors," as you call them, are some of the principle
differences between an abstruse theory that nobody cares about and a
useful tool that people actually get work done with.

Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778        AIM: dfetter666
                              Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!