Well, I guess you have to use joins for larger SQL databases but I don't define relations. I can't remember what I did to cause the errors that I first got with Access, but I was still running into SQL errors the last time I used it and I still have trouble with SQL helpers. Since some SQL errors are so well known there should be a SQL compiler or interpreter that can point out the most obvious mistakes or the language should be changed so that syntax that causes common beginner's errors should not be allowed without using a keyword to designate it. But of course they can't change the basics of the language because of legacy code.
I would never program with SQL if it wasn't still in vogue for business operations. - Jim Bromer On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > When I first started using Access for a business related project 10 to 15 > years ago I could not understand why I got such bad results on most joins. > It took me months to discover that it was an issue with Database programs > that were originally designed in the 1970s. I became outraged, because, for > some reason I had once been familiar with the problem. (Perhaps I had tested > some ideas in the 1980s and discovered through reading that the particular > error that annoyed me was typical with that kind of db programming and the > discovery that they were still using the same thing 20 years later seemed > absurd to me.) I eventually learned to do some Access and SQL programming > but I usually use fairly simple commands (I don't use joins in my commands) > and then mix the data in the programs where I have more advanced control > over the actions. (Of course more complicated commands may be used to > increase security. But you would only use those for well defined and > debugged actions.) > > It would be like suggesting that Ben Goertzel's programmers use Fortran. (I > mean - like - whaaatt?) > > I also figured that if I wrote my own database management system I could > make it much more efficient and that is still probably true. On the other > hand, since I haven't proven my ideas even in the simplest preliminary tests > it would have made much more sense to start with very simple list management > algorithms. Once you learn how to save data and retrieve data to a file > (it's not getting easier) it is probably simplest just to create arrays and > save them. The only problem is that you then need an index into the lists > (as well as an implicit system of organization of the lists). > > I thought that if I got a basic system working and then put it in template > form (I don't know if you know C++) then I could just implement the > individual components of the db management system as if it were a high level > script. However, it took longer than I thought and once I started using it > on some tests the errors became very complicated. I could not get the > compiler to give me any idea what the values of the data objects of the > template algorithms were when I was in debug mode and I didn't know how to > write parallel algorithms to display what the values of data were when I > stepping through it. (I thought about adding a dump as an unused branch and > then since the compiler did step through the template, I could just use set > the next statement but I was burned out by then.) And because you want to > use little variations in the different kinds of lists (to make it more > efficient) you are going to want to do a lot of differentiation anyway. > (Templates are good when you use data of different types but you intend to > use the algorithms in the same kind of way with only minor variations.) > > So comparing the use of arrays vs using some db management system, I would > say if you know how to save and retrieve arrays, then use them. However, > since the arrays are probably going to be huge for an AGI program you are > going to have to distribute them and that means you need to use indexes into > the arrays that are saved to the file in different segments. And you need > some indexical information that will help you locate some particular objects > in large arrays. But I would say start with something simple and test some > of your ideas out before you start making the db management system more > complicated. But I am almost up and running so it would not make sense for > me to try to start over again to try to make it even simpler. > > So I explained why I had absolutely no desire to use SQL and still wouldn't > but in answering you I reexamined a possible strategy to simplify my > programming that I might be able to use. Even if I can't use this method of > simplification in the database management part of my program since it is > mostly written I could use similar strategies in the 'conceptual' management > systems of the (planned) AGI parts.- Jim Bromer > > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Venturing into the Void.... >> >> "Umm...why not use MySql or Sql Server or Mongo DB for your object store?" >> (Some of these are free.) >> >> ~PM >> >> ----------------------- >> >> > Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 17:18:33 -0400 >> > Subject: [agi] Re: My Relatively Simple AGI Project >> > From: [email protected] >> > To: [email protected] >> >> > >> > I am trying to refurbish a database management program that I wrote a >> > few years ago and I keep finding additional lists (indexes) that I >> > have to implement (the class of each of the lists is almost complete) >> > and I just cannot keep it simple. I haven't even started testing any >> > of my AGI theories and the program is already becoming too >> > complicated. I intend on using a lot of data related to a concept (a >> > concept like collection of related data) because one basis of my >> > theories is that it takes a lot of knowledge about a subject to 'know' >> > one simple fact about the subject. So this means that all my lists >> > will add to the complications of the program once I start testing it. >> > >> > The non-programming resolute skeptics do not realize how complicated a >> > "simple" program can be. My database management program is simple >> > because I am using variations on the same basic algorithms. In fact, >> > the first step of my refurbishing the program was to take the class >> > for the lists and the indexes out of a template that I had written for >> > them and use write individual algorithms for the common algorithms >> > that I had defined in a template 6 or 7 years ago. I found that I did >> > not have enough details to debug the system using the templates even >> > though they were working well and I was not able to figure out how to >> > keep track of run time errors when there was a problem. (That is not >> > an impossible task, but it was just one more thing multiplied over and >> > over again.) >> > >> > Programming is complicated. It may turn out that don't have good AGI >> > because the management system for a program that is supposed to be >> > creative is in itself going to be extremely complicated. So people >> > get stuck into traditional programming methods just because they were >> > partly designed to make programming a little more simple. - Jim Bromer >> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
