>> A prompt reaction of the pilots prevented the stall and saved all lives aboard.
If the stall was prevented and therefore never happened and never existed, what stall was there to be prevented?
I find that more rigorous books sit on the shelf and never get read. These guys don't want to be DBAs or to design a database, they just want to be able to find out simple information.
I want to encourage them to at least start into this field, not just because it's career-expanding for them, but also because the more these tools get accepted, the less grief I'll get from management for implementing in-house the things we needed in the first place.
I can empathise with that. I doubt Head First SQL will make anyone a DBA (I haven't read it so I can't say for certain). However, if (as you say) it can give someone enough knowledge to understand how useful an SQL database can be, especially compared a spreadsheet, that has to be a good thing. After all, SQL was intended for 'regular business people' (albeit at a time when user-friendliness was an unknown concept).
I will definitely give it a read (assuming it is available on Safari). I can definitely think of some people who could benefit from it, and I know that they wouldn't ever think of attempting to read 'Database Systems'.
Just going off on a tangent, the biggest problem with SQL (IMHO) is it's attempt to use a natural English-like syntax rather than a logical, sensible syntax. I reckon the inefficient woolly overly verbose syntax of SQL is the number one reasons why so many computer scientists have such a poor understanding of relational database theory (as is often/usually the case) - they take one look at SQL and decide that anything that to do with RDBMs should be avoided like the plague and start coding their own flatfile data structures using C.
Slashdot Mirror
>> A prompt reaction of the pilots prevented the stall and saved all lives aboard. If the stall was prevented and therefore never happened and never existed, what stall was there to be prevented?
I find that more rigorous books sit on the shelf and never get read. These guys don't want to be DBAs or to design a database, they just want to be able to find out simple information. I want to encourage them to at least start into this field, not just because it's career-expanding for them, but also because the more these tools get accepted, the less grief I'll get from management for implementing in-house the things we needed in the first place. I can empathise with that. I doubt Head First SQL will make anyone a DBA (I haven't read it so I can't say for certain). However, if (as you say) it can give someone enough knowledge to understand how useful an SQL database can be, especially compared a spreadsheet, that has to be a good thing. After all, SQL was intended for 'regular business people' (albeit at a time when user-friendliness was an unknown concept). I will definitely give it a read (assuming it is available on Safari). I can definitely think of some people who could benefit from it, and I know that they wouldn't ever think of attempting to read 'Database Systems'. Just going off on a tangent, the biggest problem with SQL (IMHO) is it's attempt to use a natural English-like syntax rather than a logical, sensible syntax. I reckon the inefficient woolly overly verbose syntax of SQL is the number one reasons why so many computer scientists have such a poor understanding of relational database theory (as is often/usually the case) - they take one look at SQL and decide that anything that to do with RDBMs should be avoided like the plague and start coding their own flatfile data structures using C.