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@xxxxxxxxxx> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote!
