To balance the discussion, I would like to say that I thoroughly
enjoyed Date's latest "Database In Depth". It gave me a strong
foundation in relational theory and I can say that I think more about
my schema designs thanks to the advice in the text. Just because SQL
may allow something, doesn't make it good. If you don't use NULL, then
you don't come across 3-valued logic--problem solved.
Some Tutorial D notions really make sense; I would love to be able to
rely on every function returning a relation.
Everything is OK until he starts peddling TransRelational™ software...
On Jun 8, 2006, at 6:14 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:21:07AM -0700, dananrg@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I'm reading, and enjoying immensely, Fabial Pascal's book "Practical
>> Issues in Database Management."
>
> Be aware that Pascal, along with Date and Darwen, are...how do I put
> this gently...cranks. They've been getting more strident and
> irrational as the decades go by.
>
> Pascal, Date, and Darwen have been alleging for years, with increasing
> shrillness, that DBMSs should be based on set theory and 2-value
> logic. I say "alleging" because they have not backed up this idea
> with any actual software that others could test. SQL DBMSs are based
> on bag theory[1] and 3-value logic[2]. Until they come up with a
> testable system, or Hell freezes over, whichever comes first, Pascal's
> book will make a good companion on your shelf to books on
> Phlogiston[3] theory, or a decent doorstop, whichever you prefer.
>
> Cheers,
> D
> ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
AgentM
agentm@themactionfaction.com
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
