Slashdot Mirror


Fabian Pascal Reacts

Kardamon writes "Fabian Pascal reacts on the recent Slashdot discussion about SQL, XML, and the Relational Database Model, both on DBAzine and on his own web site Database Debunkings. An Open Source implementation of his ideas and those of C.J. Date and Hugh Darwen is REL."

46 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. Fabian's first error: by k98sven · · Score: 5, Funny

    Assuming that a Slashdot 'debate' actually is one.

    1. Re:Fabian's first error: by baadfood · · 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.

  2. Why does he stress himself? by iota · · 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...

    1. Re:Why does he stress himself? by wolenczak · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can you mod troll/flamebait a whole article?

    2. Re:Why does he stress himself? by Unordained · · 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.

    3. Re:Why does he stress himself? by kfg · · 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

    4. Re:Why does he stress himself? by Unordained · · 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!)

  3. Courage of their Convictions? by grylnsmn · · 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.

    1. Re:Courage of their Convictions? by jackb_guppy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shoot he should understand an alias! What is really an userid in a database, huh? ;-o

      PS: Database Debunk... I do not see debunking, just pushing to buy a book or two.

    2. Re:Courage of their Convictions? by bladernr · · 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
    3. Re:Courage of their Convictions? by GeoGreg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly right. Anonymous writings can even sometimes be more effective that signed writings because you are not reading them with some preconceived notion of who the author is and what his/her biases are. However, this only holds as long as the piece sticks to independently verifiable evidence and reasoned argument. Anonymous allegations with no proof or simple personal invective may be safely ignored. But simply dismissing one's opponent solely on the basis of anonymity (or, more often at Slashdot pseduonymity) is just lazy. Note: I am not a database expert, and I have no particular knowledge of the issues in this debate. But you'll just have to trust me on that ;)

    4. Re:Courage of their Convictions? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2

      Bottom Line: he signs his name to his opinions.

      "Anonymous Cowards" don't - that's why they are labeled "Anonymous Cowards", right?

      I use a handle - and put my name at the bottom.

      "Anonymous Cowards" can't, apparently.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  4. I have read the article by mondoterrifico · · Score: 4, Funny

    and can summarize it for you.
    He basically makes the point that everyone on slashdot is a clueless twit.
    A very wise man indeed. :)

  5. Politics and Programming by toupsie · · 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.
    1. Re:Politics and Programming by mondoterrifico · · 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. :)

  6. Skills by unlocked · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mr. Pascal seems to be quite the cunning-linguist.

    1. Re:Skills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      A real master debater.

  7. Don't underestimate optimizations by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oracle et al have spent decades optimizing their products for SQL as they implement it. The chances of a better designed syntax resulting in a faster database is slim. I don't give REL or any other SQL++ contender much chance at this point, if even on the legacy argument alone.

    1. Re:Don't underestimate optimizations by Anonymous Coward · · 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) ;-)

    2. Re:Don't underestimate optimizations by Ars-Fartsica · · 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.

    3. Re:Don't underestimate optimizations by lfourrier · · 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.

    4. Re:Don't underestimate optimizations by wfberg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      kx have an interesting product.. 10-100x as fast as you "legacy " database, by which they mean oracle et al of course, and specialized for time-series (which is a big deal if you deal with those).

      I don't think oracle is quite the fastest general-purpose SQL(semi)compliant RDBMS there is - it trades speed in favor of integrity.

      Also, if databases were ueber-efficient at executing SQL queries, there'd be no great need to use server side stored procedures to speed things up.

      And, last time I checked, google didn't run oracle, and for a reason.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    5. Re:Don't underestimate optimizations by DaveVoorhis · · Score: 2, Informative
      The goal of better syntax is not faster databases. Run time performance is not always the primary aim. The goal of better syntax is faster, easier, and more reliable development, and provably (within reason) correct data management code. For the PHB, that means cheaper development and maintenance.

      As for "REL [sic] or any other SQL++ contender" not having much chance, you're right. But I remember when "not much chance" was the typical response of IT directors when asked if they'd ever give up greenscreen mainframe terminals and adopt PCs. The same will always be said about programming languages, too. Entrenched languages do get displaced. For example, how many shiny new applications are being written in FORTRAN?

      Anyway, I see nothing wrong with retaining SQL as a protocol for communicating with legacy databases, especially if the SQL code is machine-generated. The external database connection facilities I'm developing for Rel use SQL in this manner. But, just as I'm not sending email by hand-coding SMTP transactions, and not writing complex GUIs in assembly language, I'd rather not develop database applications using SQL. It's simply not an efficient language for writing complex apps.

      --
      Tired of SQL? Try a true relational database:
    6. Re:Don't underestimate optimizations by stefanb · · Score: 2, Informative
      The chances of a better designed syntax resulting in a faster database is slim.

      That is most certainly wrong: by using a more expressive syntax, you are able to convey more exactly what it is you are requesting, and thereby enable the database to optimize better.

      Case in point: hierarchical relations. (Standard) SQL does not allow you to retrieve a list of nodes in a tree, so you have to emulate that query by issuing multiple queries in your application, in some stored procedure, etc. If SQL had proper support for relationships like that, the database could tell what you're requesting, and optimize the query.

      Proper support is also key: while Oracle does support the CONNECT BY mechanism, it's only a kludge. For example, you can't order the result set so that siblings are ordered in a specific way while still preserving the tree structure. There are work-arounds for all of these issues, but direct, proper support in the language would still go a long way.

    7. Re:Don't underestimate optimizations by lostguy · · 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.

  8. I agree by DogDude · · 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.
  9. Another summary by pubjames · · Score: 4, Funny


    I also read the article. My summary is as follows:

    Fabian Pascal is a twit.

  10. Re:Nice Decorum by (ars)lyme · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Like most around here I do not reply to news articles often, however the passion of Mr Pascal really has forced me to. Sadly Mr Pascal really does not understand how the medium of /. really works. Before being linked to by /. Mr Pascal doesn't realize that for most of the IT population he was like the rest of us, and probably will end up like that again.. Nobody of importance except in our own minds. As well given the traffic of /. we all realize that he also only received a minor interest compared to many many other posts which received a huge amount of response compared to the piddly 443 replies. What is worse is that while he preaches his background living through harder times than the rest of us, and relying on his univeristy training making him smarter than the rest of us. He writes or claims to write works of constructive critisim and yet cannot respond to a critique of his work other than paultry name calling (paraphrase)'your all idiots!!' It is easy as I've shown to critise someone/something, it is difficult to provide suggestions of improvement. May I suggest that before you start name calling you consider how your overly defensive behavior has tarnished your name. /. writes what it writes, virtually unmoderated, no propiganda involved. If your bringing something to the table, consider yourself marginalized.

  11. Seriously, it wasn't an argument anyways... by Vthornheart · · Score: 3, Funny

    When someone calls you a Communist in a dismissive manner on a bulletin board, that signifies that you have won the argument. It's a variant of the classic "Comparison to Nazis/Hitler" BBS rule. The people arguing against Paschal unleashed the dirty C word on him as their defense, hence they lost the argument. There's no need to defend yourself against it! =)

    --
    -Vendal Thornheart
  12. Nonsense! by eniu!uine · · Score: 4, Funny

    Politics + Programming = GNU

    It is the perfect combination. Politics and Sex on the other hand... baaad combination.

  13. So what? by ljavelin · · 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?

  14. RDF by alexborges · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The main concern of fabian is how a language defined for cross platform syntax representation in general (XML), is used for a model that is, by nature, semantic.

    His argument is impecable cause the shortcommings of a subset of XML, made to mimic SQL and SQL mistakes is not really an advancement, except to help close the gap between RDBMS's SQL implementations.

    But, there is a language out there that can fully represent the relational model. Its called RDF and a subset of it can be serialized into XML. So maybe the question we should be asking is Is that subset of RDF enough to implement the relational model?

    Cause, if it is, then kill XQUERY and use RDF-XML and alas, the best of both worlds (XML ubiquity plus RDF semantic strenght) is what we can use.

    --
    NO SIG
  15. There's nothing there, yet we need help by Animats · · 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.

    1. Re:There's nothing there, yet we need help by wintermute42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The XML community seems to be largely devoid of any knowledge of history or computer science depth. I have yet to find a description of XML schema processing in terms of grammars and parsers. The brain damaged SAX parser has become popular, while few know about the XmlPullParser. Since many of those who use XML parsers don't seem to have ever parsed anything else, they do not seem to find it odd that the scanner should call the parser, rather than the other way around.

      Perhaps this lack of computer science depth is due to the fact that XML grew out of the dot-com bubble, when people felt they had no time to design or think about much. Just get it out the door. It was also during this time that the field was flooded with people who had not necessarily studied computer science.

    2. Re:There's nothing there, yet we need help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting


      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.


      Clearly, you do not know what a relational database is. You, like many others, are simply the grist for Pascal's mill.

      You don't link tables (or relation variables). A relational database management system should give you a rich enough type system so that you can use whatever attributes necessary in a tuple to uniquely identify entities. You should be able to use composite keys without any limitations or worries about space. A good RDBMS would be able to do whatever physical linking and space saving necessary in the physical backend layer to accommodate foreign key relationships with composite keys.

      In, many cases when people do this they find that working with composite keys is cumbersome and they blame the relational database. This is kind of interesting phenomenon and conclusion. In fact, it has nothing to do with relational databases (at least in the electronic sense).

      The use of surrogate keys long predate electronic data storage systems. Prisons have used numbers for inmates, cars have used license plate numbers, and the SSN was established, long before Codd wrote his seminal papers.
      So I don't see what adding columns of serial numbers has to do with a failing of the relational model. The use of "serial" numbers in general has to do with the difficulty of finding good, stable, unique identifiers for entities of interest.

      As for times when you NEED tree based data (which is actually less common than most people think). A common mistake is to look at something like an org chart and think that this should be codified as a simple tree, when in reality the tree itself is a physical report that can be derived from more explicit base data. Anyway, I don't see why linking tables can't use the explicit base data in foreign key relationships.

      One of the problems of the RDBMS products today and in part the fault of SQL is that "tables" or relvars are WAY to heavyweight. In a true RDBMS a relvar is a fundamental variable much like local variables in a C function. The relvar should be able to referenced in arbitrary expressions with no silly ordered syntax like SQL. Relvar literals should be easy to define in expressions. A "link table" shouldn't be such a heavyweight object in the minds of a database designer. Because of the highly restrictive way SQL works, "Tables" get an overblown status as some kind of special object that makes things like tree data very difficult to work with. This is a failing of the RDBMS products on the market today, not relational model.

      Any good RDBMS implementation would have necessary functions to make dealing with tree data easy, or the language would be general enough that they could be defined anyway.

      The difference between Fabian Pascal and the truly enlightened is that the while both have come to the same conclusion that the masses are asses, the latter knows there's nothing that can be done about it, and no point in bitching about it either .

      Actually I do respect Fabian Pascal, and I am not really bashing him for his diatribes. I can't see how his behavior is any more of a waste of time than, say, posting on slashdot. I just hope that he actually ENJOYS running his website and is actually not as wound up as he sounds in his rants. In other words, if he is sort of like a maddox of the data fundamentals world I guess that's a good thing. If he really is this concerned about the state of the world constantly then he really could use some professional therapy or counseling.

      Also, Fabian Pascal is way to impatient. The Codd material only came out about 30 or so years ago. That is not a long time for these things to materialize into usage by the mainstream engineering field. Couple this with the fact that the overwhelming perception is that many things in this field are "good enough."

    3. Re:There's nothing there, yet we need help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most tables HAVE a primary key in them somewhere. It is just a matter of getting the data in there or making sure it is designed correctly. Why put a monotomicly increasing number? It makes for a 'easy' primary key. Also computers do not think in "Somelastname, SomeFirstname". They are basicaly super calculators. They LOVE integers.

      Lets do a 'C' example

      int x = 1;
      int y = 1;
      if (x == y) {//do some work}

      OR we could do this
      char *pX = "SomeString";
      char *pY = "SomeString";
      if (strcmp(pX,pY)) {// do some work}

      Now do this same operation 300000 times? Which will finish faster?

      Do not forget the FOUNDATION of the computer you are working on. While data purity is nice. It sometimes sucks for speed... Computer Science is not about 'best design' it is about 'best fit'. Sometimes you have to stand on your head and rub your belly to make it finish in a reasonable time frame.

      I do agree with many of his arguments though. There are serious issues. But all he does in those articals is poke holes. I think he needs to show fixes too. The 'I may not know art but I know what I like' argument does not fly long in a discussion.

      I also went and read the previous artical. I think he missed the REASON XML is getting a relational bolt on. People need to agrigate the data in the XML tables. Most SQL servers (Oracle, mysql, MSSQL, etc) are 'disconnected' from the program itself. You have to jump through a few hoops to get the data into the format you need. And it is usually in the form of ODBC which bites big time. Then once it finaly comes out of the DB you have to re process the data into a form you can use. XML is solving that little problem nicely but it is creating all new ones...

      Also his reasoning for disliking XML because it is 'fat' is a good reason. Once the format is 'done' you do not need extra formating. However debugging XML is probably much easier as we humans need to read it...

    4. Re:There's nothing there, yet we need help by tigersha · · Score: 2, Informative

      > I have yet to find a description of XML schema processing in terms of grammars and parsers.

      You are seriously joking, yes? Read anything about RELAX NG for a start. Look at programs like relaxer and other Schema compiler compilers. RELAX NG was based on Tree Automata from day one.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  16. Re:In Soviet Russia... by calidoscope · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From TFA: What struck me after living in the US for a while, was the similarity, at a very fundamental level, between the US and Soviet systems: while the means by which they attain their objectives differ, the objectives themselves are, for all practical purposes, the same: control and exploitation of the public. Both systems indoctrinate with propaganda from childhood.

    The one difference is that the "control" in the US is usually less centralized and the source of control shifts with time.

    If you really want to find out about abuses in propaganda, google on George Creel - who probably picked up a few lessons from William Randolph Hearst's conduct just prior to the Spanish American War. I wouldn't be surprised if the Soviets picked up a few tidbits from Creel's work.

    It is also interesting that Pascal did not mention Orwell's 1984 which is the classic description of propaganda in action. That story is becoming especially spooky with reports of the UK having the largest scale deployment of public surveillance cameras.

    --
    A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  17. A scientist newbie on the net.. by SlashDread · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nothing to see here, move along..

    "/Dread"

  18. K (lameless filter sucks) by warrax_666 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Kx's database is column-based instead of row based. That makes it hugely efficient for some queries (which tradition row-based RDBMSs have trouble with) and incredibly bad at others (in which traditional RDBMSs shine). It's just a question of trade-offs.


    Also, if databases were ueber-efficient at executing SQL queries, there'd be no great need to use server side stored procedures to speed things up.

    I think you've misunderstood something. The idea behind Stored Procedures is that you offload the data processing onto the server (which is much, much more powerful, presumably) and you don't have to transmit huge amounts of data to the client. The usefulness of SPs has nothing to do with the efficiency of SQL as such, it's more about relative processing power and infrastructure.
    --
    HAND.
  19. A testimony to insecurity and neo-accomplishment by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  20. Fabian Pascal and Compuserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Be easy on the guy, he's got a lengthy track record of going hyper as a result of public BBS discussions.

    Long before there was a Slashdot or a public recognition of the internet, there was Compuserve and its discussion forums. One such forum, CONSULT, for computer consultants, would regularly see Fabian go into apoplectic seizures and jihaads of righting conceptual database wrongs. You'd log in to forum view and see threads that had 127 messages since that morning, for example; those were the ones where Fabian was pissed off and taking no prisoners. I seem to recall that he was eventually banned from CONSULT.

    My guess is that hosting his own web site is a Godsend for him. He can rant and rave without contradiction, something that was hard to do and get an audience back in the very early 90s.

    So seeing this title today was mildly amusing to me. :)

    PS: I have a Compuserve subscriber magazine from 1991 that features Rush Limbaugh's own discussion area on Compuserve. So, many obsessive-compulsives got their start on "CI$". :)

  21. While the guy is somewhat quirky... by Qbertino · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... he does actually have a point with his Introduction to REL. I wrote a comment in the last article which puts SQL and DB design into perspective. It actually emphasises what he's trying to do with REL. There's no doubt: SQL does suck, whether it's sufficent to describe relations or not. And while you definitely shouldn't use a DB PL to design a DB (see other comment), we actually could use a successor to SQL.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  22. Re:Poor Fabian by Freon115 · · 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.

  23. Re:Poor Fabian by MemoryDragon · · 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.

  24. Re:The Genius of Fabian (Fabian contra mundi) by rycamor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, it is exactly that side of Pascal's persona (the Chomskyite side) that makes it so hard to see the value of his real accomplishments. Those he can't convince are automatically members of the mindless free-market apparatchik, and those he can convince are the brave but pitiable few who will be ground up and spit out by the soulless machine of modern commerce. Either way, you lose, it seems; and I think Pascal somehow wants it to be that way.

    Note that if you are one of the people out there who actually makes a habit of approaching new ideas with interest, and happen to be convinced by the logical arguments he makes (as I did, before I was distracted by all the politics and personality), you will probably be quite disappointed if you send any note of actual encouragement to him. The response almost always takes a negative tack.

    Quite unfortunate, really. While I think the objective truth of the phenomemon he talks about happens quite often (marginalized by a conventional-thinking public, etc...), there is no great conspiracy here. There are just people deciding what they want to deal with and what they don't. I was a geek in high school. I know what it is like to be shunned by the popular crowd, and to inwardly seethe at their shallow cultivated ignorance. Most poeple prefer mediocrity. The job of any great thinker or artist is to help people see a way past mediocrity, but that can't be done by force. And it really can't be done if you hate or despise those you are trying to convince. Unfortunately, the downside of a democracy is that people might do and think things you don't like. Thus, the only way to... get your way is to convince people agreeably. Even if you are right, forcing people to agree with you is wrong. But maybe Pascal disagrees. Maybe we should have some sort of utopian socialism ruled by the intelligentsia (do the 'intelligentsia' ever conceive of it any other way?). Yes, and then the government can appoint Pascal a seat on the National Education Board, or something like that, which will lay down the 'guidelines' about what will be taught in the schools and universities. I can see the exhaustive tests and questionnaires that every computer science professor will have to fill out. And of course the appropriate punishments will have to be meted out in order to silence dissent on this matter. But of course this will have to be done, because a free market (for money OR ideas) will lead some to ignore the obviously true principles of logic, thus allowing some to have wrong conjectures, and intellectual anarchy will result!

    See the essential dichotomy of Pascal's argument here? On the one side, he lauds anyone with the mental self-reliance to escape the Trap of Commercialized Education, but on the other side, he decries a system that allows people to make up their own minds about what they will buy, do with their lives, and ultimately, believe (if I correctly read between the lines on his many comments about education). As if somehow people are powerless to make up their own minds in anything.

    Oh, and read Paul Johnson's Intellectuals for a glimpse at the world of Noam Chomsky and other great minds of the past 2 centuries. Quite revealing in how these people are so willing to sacrifice real people for the sake of their theoretical constructs. Why do so many intellectuals, great in one very specific area of endeavor, think that somehow qualifies them to judge every other area of life?