In message
<f22433e8895313419b41ba386c0fdeea02125...@planomail.corp.tylertechnologie
s.com>, "Bessel, Karen" <[email protected]> writes
You seem to have completely missed my point.
Referential integrity is only ONE reason why SQL is a "real" RDBMS as
opposed to U2. ONE example. There are MANY. It's ridiculous to consider
U2's approach with referential integrity to SQL comparable - enforcing
referential integrity at an applications programming level is much more
time-intensive and error-prone than setting it up at the database level.
And you're missing MY point. Actually, you're talking rubbish - do you
really think "Structured Query LANGUAGE" is a database? But let's ignore
that ...
In a properly designed (and I stress the word "properly"), MultiValue
application, the application does NOT enforce RI - the database does it!
Do you understand the distinction I make between "natural" and "statute"
integrity? In a relational database, probably some 90% of the relations
are "natural" relations. In an MV database, those relations don't even
exist - all the data is stored in a single record. The only integrity
that is of any concern to MV is statute integrity - where some business
guy has decided that a relationship (not enforced by the laws of nature)
exists. That leads to those nasty situations where the data in the
database does not co-incide with reality ... and because relational
theory makes no distinction between natural and statute relationships,
and because it has so many more EXPLICIT relationships with which to
make a mistake than MV, then things are more likely (and they do) to go
wrong.
It's okay to wear your rose-colored glasses on if you want to....It
seems that I'm the only naysayer here, and I'm sorry to be playing the
"doom & gloom" role, but IMHO it's reality - the writing is very clear
on the wall to me that U2 cannot compete with the "big boys". It's even
less well equipped to compete now that IBM has "left the room" and a
relatively unknown company has acquired it.
I pity the companies that buy into this nonsense. There's a nice quote I
see regularly - "For a successful technology, reality must take
precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. --Richard
Feynman"
Unfortunately for us, at the moment, public relations is winning out in
favour of relational. But if you want me to describe things in
scientific terms...
Relational theory is MATHS (and very good maths, too).
Quantum Mechanics is MATHS (likewise, very good).
Special Relativity is MATHS (also good).
But relational theory (maths) is to managing information (real world)
what quantum mechanics (maths) is to black holes (real world).
In other words, it's just the WRONG TOOL for the job. And the poor
business analyst is the sap who has to try and drive screws with a
hammer. Did you get my point about storing lists in a relational
database? About how it FORCES you to mix up data and metadata? And don't
you understand why that is a BAD THING?
Us humans have this religious thing. We *want* to believe in things. So
we believe in mathematics. And even when the real world tells us the
maths is irrelevant, we persist in trying to force the world to do what
we believe the maths tells us it should do. (That's my point about
quantum mechanics and black holes - QM just *doesn't* *work* for
describing black holes - just as relativity doesn't work at the atomic
level. As a scientist, I know both theories are wrong, but the man in
the street says "the scientist believes in them, so I will". The
businessman says "the mathematicians believe in relational, so I will
too". And unfortunately, mathematicians tend to be even worse at
believing in their theories than the man in the street!)
(Note I said "the maths is irrelevant". Maths is never "wrong" - it
either adds up or it doesn't. But even if it adds up, that says
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether it works (or not) when describing a
real-world phenomena.)
Just my $0.02, for what it's worth. I've lived in the Pick world since
1988 and I don't want to leave it behind, but that time has definitely
come. As soon as my education enables me to join the .NET/SQL world, I'm
going to bid a fond farewell to this era of my career, that has enabled
me to raise my daughters, straighten their teeth, buy a house, and all
of the other good things that have come my way over the last 20 years.
Sadly, I think you're making a sensible decision :-( From a science
perspective I'd say you're embracing a false religion, but from a
business pov it makes sense :-(
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman <[email protected]>
'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the
thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man
lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998
Visit the MaVerick web-site - <http://www.maverick-dbms.org> Open Source Pick
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
