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. :)
> >>> What say we just stop right there and call Date's Relational
> >>> Model what it is: a silly edifice built atop wrong premises.
> >>
> >> Using that logic, we should kick SQL to the curb too.
> >
> > Um, no. You haven't actually used the logic. You're just saying
> > you did, which is different. I've got to say you're reminding me
> > of just about every Libertarian, Communist, or other kind of
> > doctrinaire moonbat I've run across. Having a theory is nice, but
> > when reality bumps up against it, that means the theory, not
> > reality, is wrong.
>
> What's with the insults? Cool off or something...
I sent you private mail in response to your private email. You
decided to send it to a public list, moonbat. And you still haven't
actually used any logic. You've just alleged that you have.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter
Remember to vote!