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