Fabian Pascal Reacts

Why does he stress himself? by iota · 2004-09-06 05:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Okay Fabian needs to relax. Take a deep breath! He made two fundamental mistakes which probably cost him to waste time he could have spent on something more productive, or at least personally gratifying... (Although bitching about Slashdot posts can be gratifying, I suppose.)

1. He took Slashdot comments personally. This is something we see all the time. Let this serve as /another/ warning to all future Slashdotees -- People hidden behind anonymity, even experienced onces, like drivers, will forget that there are real people on the other side of the conversation.

2. He treats Slashdot comments as well-thought responses to his articles. For Pete's sake come on! This is the place where professionals, interested parties, and random wannabes can foam at the mouth and say the first thing that comes to mind. Hell man, comments are moderated by popular vote! This is not exactly a medium of high academic quality. And that's just fine. Sometimes first impressions are what you want, sometimes they're complete BS, but they only give you an insight in to where some people would /start/ thinking about a problem, not where they would end up after careful consideration after research and practice.

In the end Fabian, you're probably gonna get flamed for your response as well. If you want it for the intention, cool. If not you should probably just let it go...

Re:Why does he stress himself? by Unordained · 2004-09-06 06:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's just who he is. Fabian Pascal, Chris Date, Hugh Darwen, and even sometimes Joe Celko (though the rest would likely never admit to it) have good ideas most of the time. But that's the purely academic part of who they are. Fabian reacts hotly to just about anything. Most of his posts on db-debunk are cynical in nature, with little else to offer. When I've tried to get useful clarification out of him, all I got was "read my book, I write so I only have to say anything once." After buying it and reading it thoroughly, I found I still had a question, because he seemed to contradict himself. His answer was, to paraphrase, "I can't convince you if you don't already believe." What a sad answer from an author whose book you're reading, and even worse from someone steeped in "truth", "proof", "logical correctness" and the like!

Communication is breaking down between those who are pretty sure they have a clue, and the rest, and it's not (as they seem to think) entirely the fault of those not in the know. They've given up, they feel they have no reason to try to teach anymore, and that's that. What's worse, there are very few people trying to push their ideas, so when they turn to cynicism, it reflects on their academic work as well. As suggested by Fabian's comments about usernames vs. 'real-world' names, it's hard to divorce the person pushing an idea from the idea itself. But we need to!

There's some good stuff in "the third manifesto", and more to be done. I'm saddened that part of the book is based on what they feel is obvious/established, and part of it is conjecture, but on the whole it presents a fresh look at a not-quite-old-yet idea. We should build on the shoulders of those who came before us, even if they've given up all hope. I hope the slashdot crowd won't give up on this group of researchers just because they can become hot-headed, stubborn, or even flat-out bitter. We've got work to do.
Re:Why does he stress himself? by kfg · 2004-09-06 06:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

1. He took Slashdot comments personally.

No, not really. What he did was point out Slashdot comments that were personal and noted that these represented the majority.

Sometimes I too find myself getting tired of explaining the difference between "You're stupid" and "Your idea is stupid" just to try to have a meaningful exchange. It's particularly bothersome when the other person is in a position where knowledge of that difference legitimately ought to be assumed.

2. He treats Slashdot comments as well-thought responses to his articles. For Pete's sake come on! This is the place where professionals, interested parties, and random wannabes can foam at the mouth and say the first thing that comes to mind.

Not really. In fact what he does is point out that they aren't, even where the person posting purports to be a professional, even after making a concerted effort to find such in response to someone else making the claim that well thought out responses could be found here.

KFG
Re:Why does he stress himself? by Unordained · 2004-09-06 09:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

"SQL" didn't stand for anything at first, and now has several meanings of which 'simple' is one, 'structured' is another, etc. And if you use SQL a lot, you can find that it's anything but simple, particularly when it doesn't natively do what you need it to do. A few paragraphs of ugly joins, sub-queries, NULL-handling, and temp tables later, and you begin to realize that what you're doing could probably be done more easily by the server, if only it knew what you wanted -- but your language doesn't allow you to accurately express what you actually want, limiting you to a simple vocabulary.

There's a point at which you stop fixing something up, and just go ahead and replace it. Mistakes happen. Some of these guys were involved in the SQL specs the first time around, it's not like they never wanted to have anything to do with it.

As far as they're concerned, it's like a bunch of people thinking that math goes as far as their 4-function calculator, which is "good enough" for them. It is good enough, yes, for some people, but others want much more, and want a good way to express what they want. Symbolic math, symbolic relational operations, it's all the same idea. (Relational databases are firmly grounded in mathematics, it's not a stretch at all to use this simile.) The new language they propose (as an example only, not as a final product) isn't particularly hard to read and understand, but is much more expressive when you need it to be. You can do 6*8 using nothing but the '6', '8', and '+' keys, but wouldn't it be easier if they just gave you a '*' key, and while they're at it, made it easier to extend your calculator for new operators too?

There's a good whole chapter in "the third manifesto" concerned with mapping the current SQL language to the "D" language they propose; they don't want to force you to switch over without some time to learn, and they'd like to keep existing applications working on new server software as much as possible. Yes, they want to replace SQL, but want to give you a migration plan too. (Note, however, that the cost of using this SQL translation feature would be the same, more or less, as trying to switch to a different dbms vendor -- not all SQL is the same! Identical syntax can even give you different results on different servers!)

Courage of their Convictions? by grylnsmn · 2004-09-06 05:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

I stopped reading and only skimmed the article after I read this:

Note: Participants in the thread use aliases rather than real names. So much for the courage of their convictions.

I'm sorry, but the use of an alias or username doesn't say anything about the "courage of their convictions". It is a common practice to use an account name, if only to provide a unique identifier for a user.

For example, I've done a search on Google for my own name, and found that there are several other people in the US who share my name. One is a preacher in Florida. Another is a lawyer in Pennsylvania. I don't even have all that common of a name.

What about my cousin, named David Evans? Evans is a common last name (at least for those of Welsh extraction), and david isn't exactly a rare first name. How many "David Evans" might post at a site as popular as Slashdot?

I'm sorry, but to dismiss someone (and their arguments) as cowardly because they use a screen name or user account is to ignore the substance of their remarks. If he were really interested in accepting constructive criticism and improving his ideas, he would not be ridiculing those who comment on them.

Re:Courage of their Convictions? by bladernr · 2004-09-06 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm sorry, but to dismiss someone (and their arguments) as cowardly because they use a screen name or user account is to ignore the substance of their remarks.
Is he entirely wrong? Hiding behind the screen name - and I do hide, you will not find my real name, address, and phone number in my /. journal - removes some accountability. As soon as you remove accountability, people will do and say things they wouldn't if they were accountable.
I do write articles in print media under my real name. I check facts, think things through, cite sources, interview experts, and all the other sorts of things you do when your reputation is on the line (accountability). During the course of this research, I discover that I don't know everything, and the quality of the articles is much higher because of the research (and the research happens to a large extent because of accountability).
Now, here on Slashdot, I am free to say whatever comes to mind, as we all are. How many things have been stated as absolute fact that a quick bit of research would show are false? How many people would shoot off at the mouth with so little thought if the comments would be associated with them, personally, throughout their life?
Being able to speak anonyously is a good thing for political reasons (dissonants in China and the Middle East don't enjoy the same freedoms we do in the West, so I don't fault them for remaining anonymous or using aliases in commentary). However, any time someone is speaking anonymously, what's wrong with being a bit more suspicious of what they say?

--
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds

Politics and Programming by toupsie · 2004-09-06 05:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unlike chocolate and peanut butter, these are two things do not go together. Nothing destroys a really good technical discussion than an introductory quote of Chomsky. I don't care if you love Reagan or Kennedy gets you feeling all squiggly inside, its just wrong. Plain wrong. Stick with the tech you know and keep it away from what you think is the right political belief.

also ignore my .sig

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

Re:Politics and Programming by mondoterrifico · 2004-09-06 06:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

The quote has almost nothing to do with politics and everything to do with how ideology filters out objectivity.
A very apropos quote in my opinion, and it kind of makes your comment ironic to boot. :)

I agree by DogDude · 2004-09-06 05:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

While this "article" is rambling, and realtively incoherent, I will agree with him on one thing: the average Slashdot user knows *nothing* about data. Any time a database discussion crops up, every PHP and PERL hack comes out of the woorkwork describing the wonderful spped at which MySQL handles a "select *" query. I personally feel that any database that is large enough or complex enough to have a DBA should limit access to it to only people who have had a basic "what is a database" class that explains what a relational database is, how it works, the basic history behind it, and specific basics such as stored procedures, triggers, views, foreign keys, etc. I can't begin to count the number of completely ignorant postings I've seen on /. regarding data. Hell, most people treat the database as an afterthought when designing an application, when, in reality, it should almost always be the *first* consideration.

--
I don't respond to AC's.

Re:Don't underestimate optimizations by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-06 06:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not true. It quite possible to create a product that would "out-perform" Oracle if that was the only criteria. The management system that supports a database product is just as important.

SQL has many flaws that are inherent in the language, and those flaws can manifest themselves as bugs. SQL is an old language, just like C. Unfortunately vendors make money by selling backward compatability, XML capabilities etc.

I think Pascal's point is that (1) many people are ignorant (not even aware of the problems) and proud of it (no surprise there) , (2) group-think, commercial pressures etc conspire against products like REL (no surprise there).

I think Open Source has a great role to play in these situations - it is not as succeptable to many of those pressures (but may have it's own ideologies) ;-)

So what? by ljavelin · 2004-09-06 06:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Heck, everyone knows that SQL was a mistake and that XML was an even bigger mistake. Merging the two seems like compounding both mistakes.

And, at the same time, most of us know that SQL and XML are pretty good at something, and it'll be a long while before someone develops a compelling alternative.

So the news here is that Fabian Pascal doesn't like some ideas, and to be honest, I don't like some ideas too. He doesn't have to provide alternatives to unloved ideas. I think that's OK.

I worked with a woman who was damned sure that she was going to store a copy of my relational database (Postgres) in her XML database. It sounded like a bad technical idea. I didn't like it, and I expressed that I didn't like it without proposing an alternative that would work with her application. Isn't that OK?

Re:Don't underestimate optimizations by Ars-Fartsica · 2004-09-06 06:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not true. It quite possible to create a product that would "out-perform" Oracle if that was the only criteria.

If you think you can build a product that meets all of the requirements that Oracle does, yet performs better in the average case...well, I call BS. Don't respond with MySQL performing better because by admission MySQL does not meet the same requirements as Oracle.

Re:Fabian's first error: by baadfood · 2004-09-06 06:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

This post isn't funny. I mean what? This guy actually thinks that he needs to defend himself against posts made by ignoramuses on Slashdot? Given my distruct of both XML and SQL - hell anything that doesnt have a nice binary API - I was quite willing to belive him, but this bizarre behaviour has made me categorize him firmly as a loon.

Re:Don't underestimate optimizations by lfourrier · 2004-09-06 06:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oracle et al have spent decades optimizing their products for SQL as they implement it

SQL should not be "as implemented by x or y". And decades of optimization is perhaps not the best. Decades ago, RAM was much more costly. Datatype where usually much poorer(even if I have problem with the principle ofBLOBs).

Premature optimization is the root of all evil (it's not from me ;). Sound mathematical principles, without shortcuts and exceptions, seem much more interresting in the long run.

There's nothing there, yet we need help by Animats · 2004-09-06 06:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

That article is just a long flame.

There are real issues, but the article doesn't address them.

Tree-based databases are thirty years old. See MUMPS. Explictly linked databases are also thirty years old. See the CODASYL DBMS. XML database enthusiasts need to read up on those old systems to avoid making the same mistakes.

Relational databases aren't enough, either. When you find yourself putting columns of serial numbers in tables so you can link tables together, the relational model isn't fitting the problem.

These issues are not being addressed all that well.

SQL is terrible... by morgdx · 2004-09-06 07:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

SQL is the worst language for accessing relational data, apart from all others that have been tried before.

(Sorry Winston)

--
http://jfin.org/jFin pure java open source financial library

A testimony to insecurity and neo-accomplishment by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-06 07:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Pascal makes a number of interesting points, although he does himself a disservice by wasting energy engaging some of the people here who probably were more interested in pushing his buttons than having a productive discussion. He does illuminate an ever-growing trend where acerbic, personalized, condemning rhetoric is perceived as an alternative to actual substance.

This really bothers me. Everyone's welcome to criticize, but NOT everyone's opinion is equal (IMO). Take a person like Robert X. Cringely, who every other month has a goofy idea about how to get rid of spam, when his main experience with it is as your typical e-mail user and not a network administrator. His opinion pales in comparison to that of someone who is down in the trenches and has more experience and depth of knowledge. Unfortunately, Cringely and his bone-headed schemes get more attention than other, much-more-credible and much-more-realistic ideas proposed by those who have demonstrated that they are part of the necleus of the issue, as opposed to some journalist who's job is merely to regurgitate press releases and manufacture titillating bylines.

We have a new breed of "experts" which aren't really experts in any field other than caustic communication.

Mr. Pascal has a long and distinguished career and has been a visible pioneer in this industry. Perhaps his critics have equally illustrious careers involving the development of adult porn password databases, Starbucks employee management, kissing TA ass and other equally relevant disciplines that, when coupled with some clever put-downs compensate for a grand-canyon-sized disparity in real-world wisdom.

Everyone's opinion is worth mentioning, but if you're going to dis someone like Pascal, you better open your fly and whip your own dick out and prove it's bigger.

Re:Poor Fabian by Freon115 · 2004-09-06 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Did you even bother reading his article and the previous discussion?
He mentions his origins because that's what stupid slashdotters attacked him on last time.

Re:Poor Fabian by MemoryDragon · 2004-09-06 08:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Arr somebody mentioned, he came from romania. I have not grown up in a socialist country (unless you agree with good ole Arnold the Governator, actually living here was more free than in many other countries)

But giving the almost non existend distance I already met a bunch of romanian people. Believe me if you made it up to the age of 13 you probably had a harder life than most people up until the age of 65 in other countries. The country really was fucked up in many regards, with a totalitarian neo Cesar on top of it. If there ever was a European big brother like country, probably Romania would have deserved the title.

But back to the other quote, have you ever spent a a thought about following that in the US you constantly here how good this country is, that it is the best to live in the world at least ten times a day in variations, no matter how f**** things are. Probably the guys in Vietnam and noq Iraq hear/heard it also every day on the US radio, television etc... while bleeding to death in the sand / or were bleeding to death in the jungle.

Great that the government and the country is so great, while the government has a serious pribe problem, with legalized bibe with the face of electional donations etc... Given this guy is heavily sensitive to this issues, I am glad he speaks out openly.

Re:Don't underestimate optimizations by lostguy · 2004-09-06 14:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

To clarify your statement, are you saying that, because you can bodge your RDBMS into returning hierarchically-structured information, there is no reason to look for a more domain-specific abstraction?

Why use one line of code when you can use 20, that kind of thing?

Just checking.

20 of 161 comments (clear)