Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

Noons <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:<40af7768$0$3038$[e-mail]>...

> > on discussing these things in this thread, it's pretty clear to me we
> > are dealing with zealots and those looking for genuine answers have
 
> It's a pity that you have considered my reply as that of a zealot.
> I did concede a few points and debated yours in a civilized fashion.

Sorry if you thought I was refering to you specificly, rather I was
lamenting about the general quality of the responses in this thread,
like those of Volker, moronic zealot extraordinaire, a man so stupid,
that when I suggested he didn't know what a fallacy was, he thought I
was critisising his _english_ instead of his knowledge of logic and
the standards of debate.

However, there is clear zealotry in your post, for example:

You said: "It's with freeware that you need a STACK of wrappers to
protect you from sudden underlying code changes!  Not with commercial
software!"

See: no other reasoning is given why underlying code may suddenly
change other than in one case it is _free_, in the other case it is
_commercial_. This is not a reasoned argument, but rather the faith of
a zealot.

Since neither freeness nor commercialness has a direct impact on code
stability, but rather the release management practices of the
development group has.

There are badly managed free software projects, and badly managed
nonfree ones, your argument is therefore a fallacy, although your
english, like Volker's is great!

> However, thanks for giving me the opportunity of stating this in a less
> civilized language (remember: YOU started the language, not I):

Please, use any language you like, you are quite welcome if my post
has given you a greater since of liberty.

>  none of
> your points is by definition a "world truth".

When I say things like "the readers can make up their own minds, as
they should in any case" and "these are suggestions" (both present in
the post you are responding too) what makes you think I am defining
"world truths?"

>  You don't provide a single
> supporting argument that does not involve your interpretation of what
> software makers would do rather than what they in fact do.

Oh please, I have provided many clear aruments throughout this thread,
in my last message I even posted pseudocode, how much clearer do you
want?

> Your stupid deduction that somehow only your view of the world is worthy
> the title of "developer" defines you as the idiotic and moronic type of
> geek that thinks the world was invented yesterday by your kind and all that
> came before is just amateur effort.  In character, I might say.

You know nothing about my character or world view. Amateur effort is
amateur effort, on it's own it is neither old nor new. None of the
ideas I have suggested are particularily new. The existince of a large
body of free software is fairly new, however the practice of acquiring
source licences for critical dependencies is not, and serves more or
less the same function. Abstraction is not new, good archiving
techniques are not new. A developer who did not understand these
techniques was an amateur in 1976, just as much as today.

> You and your little group can go and drop dead as this thread ends
> here for me: I don't have time to argue ANYTHING with "kewl" people.

I'm sorry the barbs you endured in your primary school still hurt you
so much, perhaps therapy can help.

> Not worth the effort: the worst disasters in IT development I've ever seen
> in 30 years of career have been prompted by your kind and I don't like
> my name associated with that sort of unprofessional reputation.  It
> never pays in the long run.

Let's see, I am suggestion abstracting dependencies, getting source
code when you can and keeping your archives human readable.

What sort of disasters can come of this? The worst that can be said is
that, if implemented poorly, these suggestions may cause performance
degradation, hardly Godzilla crushing Tokyo.

However, It is quite easy to imagine disasters as a consequence of not
following these suggestions; customers lost by not being able to
support their database platform, production applications obsoleted by
obsoleted debendencies, unusable archives and lost permenant records.

> Goodbye and keep developing for a non-existent market.
> It has a brilliant future.

Which market is that? The market for good applications? I agree that
is too small and that too many firms are screwed by bad developers and
protectionist suppliers, however I assure you the marker for
developers who understand good, well designed, open systems is doing
quite well, and growing.

> And yes, I DO have a future and nothing you can
> possibly do will stop it.

Hey, I only want to improve your future with my advise! Here, I'll
give you another tip:

A "binding" is a term used to describe a native function (or method)
that provides access to an external dependency.

For instance, 'MySQL', the database server, is a dependency, in PHP,
the function mysql_query is called a binding. 'libcurl', the URL
handling library, is a dependency, the PHP function 'curl_exec', is a
binding.

An 'API' ("application programming interface") is the interface
provided by the dependency itself for external access, frequently for
C, the 'binding' is your platform's _native_ function or method that
provides access to this API, not the API itself.

Each of these terms, 'Dependency', 'Binding' and 'API' have distinct
meanings, and now, after a 30 year career, you can finaly understand
them!

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Dmytri.