From: Hazel and Joe Date: 2007-03-29T03:12:48+09:00 Subject: Re: Object/Relational Mapping is the Vietnam of Computer Sci Hi Austin: I don't know how I happened to recieve this email. But, if I understand the content properly, I agree. I am an older programmer. My main occupation is writing a book, "WHAT-AM-I?". I am taking some of the ideas developed in the above book to programs that demonstrate the concepts in software simulations and active displays. I think that I have a solution to the carrying out of these programs in Java Applets plus some old programs in object format from Eric Isaacson's A86 Macro Assembler. However, I just learned that I have both Ruby and Python on my new computer (in addition to Perl and Java). Of these, Perl is the only one that I have used before. But, I do want the easiest language to work into the HTML content of the book. The book is written in HTML and I need to add some action displays that describe how my senses (eye, ear, etc) seem to be mechanized. Could you spare just a moment to give me your opinion on which way to go? I would really appreciate your opinion. My previous experience has been in FORTRAN, C, asm, and FORTH. The book is not finished, but it is out on the web at: http://homepage.mac.com/jhmurray/a_html/toc.html Have a great day! Joe Murray On 3/28/07, Austin Ziegler wrote: > On 3/28/07, Eleanor McHugh wrote: > > On 28 Mar 2007, at 09:41, Edwin Fine wrote: > > > Bottom line is, I agree with ESR: > > > "Much of what looks like rudeness in hacker circles is not intended to > > > give offense. Rather, it's the product of the direct, > > > cut-through-the-bullshit communications style that is natural to > > > people > > > who are more concerned about solving problems than making others feel > > > warm and fuzzy." > > It is possible to be both polite and terse, but the effort required > > is often much higher than that required to do some basic fact- > > checking with Google. Each time someone fires off an ill-considered > > opinion based on fashion, marketing hype or religious predilection > > they're effectively polluting our shared intellectual space, and yet > > somehow it's those who suffer this on a daily basis who're the > > offensive ones... > > As the one who has been accused of being excessively abusive in this > thread, I need to point out that I didn't call the author of the > original post an idiot; I said that they were *either* ignorant or an > idiot. One *cannot* rationally say that "I think relational databases > are evil" if you know anything about the theory *unless* you're being > willfully ignorant and/or stupid. As is said above, you're choosing > fashion, hype, or religion over science and knowledge. > > There are a lot of things that one can say about SQL databases that > are minimally based on relational theory, most of them pretty darned > awful, but the merest bit of knowledge about data theory precludes you > from suggesting that any of a number of other "database" types are > even viable from that standpoint. > > They may *work*, but they don't do so through any rigorous theory or > application of computer science; there's a lot of code out there that > does exactly that, and I've written some of it. (Not for these types > of systems, obviously.) But ultimately, one hits a point where the > lack of theory involved in your data store *will* come to bite you. A > lot of people start looking at other options than SQL databases > precisely because the reality of SQL doesn't match relational algebra > and the relational model. They assume that because database management > system vendors, who are part of the hype machine and are just as > vulnerable to the hype, didn't implement things properly, that the > whole theory is bunk. > > Well, it isn't. And most SQL databases are still better structured > than object databases will ever be. > > -austin > -- > Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/ > * austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/ > * austin@zieglers.ca > >