On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 03:18:54PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Friday 09 June 2006 12:39, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:29:59PM -0400, A.M. wrote:
> > > >> Yes, and all SQL products worth their salt include some languages
> > > >> to provide iteration and other processing that SQL can't do or
> > > >> doesn't do well. Why must the rules be different for a truly
> > > >> relational db. (see http://dbappbuilder.sourceforge.net/Rel.html)
> > > >
> > > > I may get interested if some actual software which implements
> > > > Date's Relational Model ever comes out. Or I may not, as I am
> > > > getting lots of useful work done using SQL and friends. We
> > > > empiricists are like that.
> > >
> > > You mean like the Java software I pointed out in the link above?
> > > It's an implementation of Tutorial D.
> >
> > Do let me know when somebody uses it. :)
>
> So "as an empiricist", you have derived that programming in PHP,
> hitting a mysql backend, atop a Windows OS, is far better than that
> wonky perl/postgresql/linux stuff you normally work with, right?
One important difference is that I can (and have) done head-to-head
comparisons of actual systems such as you describe, and thence can
draw some conclusions about what's appropriate for the organization.
Can't really say the same about Rel's attempt at Tutorial D.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter
Remember to vote!
