 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Database Servers DB2InformixIngresMS SQLOraclePervasive.SQLPostgreSQLProgressSybaseDesktop Databases FileMakerFoxProMS AccessParadoxGeneral General DB TopicsDatabase TheoryRelated Topics Java Development.NET DevelopmentVB DevelopmentMore Topics ... |
Database Forum / General DB Topics / DB Theory / March 2008Flash to JOG
As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not always agree with you, put you have commanded a level of respect from us that makes Perryman's attempt at condescension ludicrous. You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck. > As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that > there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if > you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck. I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that the OO vanguard (as opposed to the rest of us who just use OO as a necessasry tool) have trouble with the conceptual/logical layer distinction that we all seem to see as bright as day. If nothing else our discussions with comp.oo have made me wonder why there are no programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence. >>As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that >>there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the > concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence. Alphora's Dataphor > >>As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that > >>there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Alphora's Dataphor I was trying to look into D4 recently, and was worried it had gone under? Alphora's site is cryptic to say the least at the moment. Rel also looked interesting, and I liked some of the syntax - especially the fact that for relvar datatypes, A + B is the union of A and B, and hence A += B is an insert, etc. > ... > Rel also looked interesting, and I liked some of the syntax - > especially the fact that for relvar datatypes, A + B is the union of A > and B, and hence A += B is an insert, etc. I think it's more than syntax, TTM defines it that way. > > ... > > Rel also looked interesting, and I liked some of the syntax - > > especially the fact that for relvar datatypes, A + B is the union of A > > and B, and hence A += B is an insert, etc. > > I think it's more than syntax, TTM defines it that way. I used a similar syntax on the current complier I am building...I allowed the possibility to switch operator "+" with "UNION". Considering relation A, B... What is between [] is a relation What is between {} are is an attribute set or subset What is between || is a constraint (either expressed litteraly or as a the constraint for an existing relation) [INT_RANGE = | INT BETWEEN 10 AND 50 | ] --> INT_RANGE un-ary relation (new type) is defined from INT data type --> IN_RANGE is derived from INT. [MAKE A={A1 INT_RANGE, A2 INT, A3 INT}] --> A header and constraint set is constituted. It is benefiting from INT_RANGE constraint set through simple typing. [MAKE A={A1 INT_RANGE, A2 INT, A3 INT}] --> The traditional way OR [MAKE HEADER[A]=HEADER[B]] --> On this, I thought about openning the possibility to create headers independently from relations at definition time. The system keeps in the repository headers and associates constraints to them. That way relation header B is constituted and the constraints are implicitely implemented through this mechanism... The logic is --> When a relation A is constituted a header[A] is necessarily constituted and stored in the repository. --> The above header can be assigned to another *unexisting* relation and automatically defines a typing/constraining for all attributes at once. [MAKE C = [A + B]] --> Adds relation A to relation B and constitutes new relation C body --> UNION (at relation level) /INSERT (at tuple level) [MAKE C = [A - B]] --> Substracts relation B from relation A and constitutes new relation C body --> MINUS (at relation level) /DELETE (at tuple level) [MAKE C = [A * B]] --> multiples A per B (full cartesian product) and assigns body to relation C body --> FULL JOIN (relation level)/ [MAKE C = [A/B{A1, .....AN}]] --> divides A per B and assigns result to relation C body. --> GROUP BY The rest is just presenting PRESENT2D [C] --> Tabular format Let me know what you think... > > > ... > > > Rel also looked interesting, and I liked some of the syntax - [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Let me know what you think... Promise me you're not going to do a neo and post this stuff on every thread.... > > > > ... > > > > Rel also looked interesting, and I liked some of the syntax - [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Promise me you're not going to do a neo and post this stuff on every > thread.... LOL... All right, all right....Sorry I have hacked this thread. Here is a token of my repentance... I shall not mention how my compiler handles relational operations I shall not mention how my compiler handles relational operations I shall not mention how my compiler handles relational operations I shall not mention how my compiler handles relational operations I shall not mention how my compiler handles relational operations I am trying to gain some feedback on the compiler I am currently building before release in open source. Quoth JOG: > I was trying to look into D4 recently, and was worried it had gone > under? Alphora's site is cryptic to say the least at the moment. It seems Alphora is having trouble after Bryn Rhodes and Nathan Allan left. Dataphor download and support is available at http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/.  SignatureJon > Quoth JOG: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > left. Dataphor download and support is available at > http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/. They left?!? Wow! Anyone know where they went? >> Quoth JOG: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > They left?!? Wow! Anyone know where they went? D'Oh! http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/ That oughta learn me! Note to self: Write "Click thru first, ask questions later!" on the board 100 times. Quoth Bob Badour: >> It seems Alphora is having trouble after Bryn Rhodes and Nathan Allan >> left. Dataphor download and support is available at >> http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/. > > They left?!? Wow! Anyone know where they went? Um... They started Database Consulting Group. (http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/). Hopefully, Dataphor will rise again as an open source project. SignatureJon > Quoth Bob Badour: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/). Hopefully, Dataphor will rise > again as an open source project. I wished years ago they would take the Turbo-Pascal approach to pricing or at least the Oracle-borg approach to marketing. As an independent consultant, I have had Oracle employees almost tackle me to force me to take a copy of their dbms server product. > > Quoth Bob Badour: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > consultant, I have had Oracle employees almost tackle me to force me to > take a copy of their dbms server product. WHAT DO YOU WANT? >>>Quoth Bob Badour: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > WHAT DO YOU WANT? I am not sure I understand the question. Didn't I already answer it? Quoth Bob Badour: >> Um... They started Database Consulting Group. >> (http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/). Hopefully, Dataphor will rise >> again as an open source project. > > I wished years ago they would take the Turbo-Pascal approach to pricing > or at least the Oracle-borg approach to marketing. I don't know what the Turbo-Pascal pricing was, but Dataphor was dirt cheap, wasn't it? A pay-once server license, a few hundred dollars or something? I don't remember; being a non-profit organisation, we didn't pay the list price. SignatureJon > Quoth Bob Badour: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > something? I don't remember; being a non-profit organisation, we didn't > pay the list price. Turbo-Pascal was $99 for a compiler with a complete IDE. Prior to its release, compilers generally cost many times that, and one edited source files with WordStar. Phillipe Kahn for all his flaws completely changed the market, which is what Alphora needed to do to succeed with D4. I forget what I was quoted for Dataphor. At the time, I couldn't justify the cost, and I was making way more money than the typical young programmer. Without a solid base of users, I knew I could never sell it to clients. Hiring is difficult enough without an empty labour pool. > > Quoth Bob Badour: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > files with WordStar. Phillipe Kahn for all his flaws completely changed > the market, which is what Alphora needed to do to succeed with D4. I paid $30 for my first Turbo-Pascal copy. That was Borland's price, in 1983, for the CP/M version. It was not the first version. In addition to the low purchase price, another low cost feature was the absence of a price tag on the running of object code. Some other languages feature a cheap compiler, but the licensee of object code is forced to obtain a run time system. > ... > Turbo-Pascal was $99 for a compiler with a complete IDE. Prior to its > release, compilers generally cost many times that, and one edited source > files with WordStar. Phillipe Kahn for all his flaws completely changed > the market, which is what Alphora needed to do to succeed with D4. > ... I seem to remember that Alphora was a couple of grand for a single developer license. Another big thing Kahn did was popularize the IDE, the lack of which had been one unspoken productivity excuse for many years by informal guilds of batch-oriented developers, on all platforms, mainframe, Unix and micro's. In the same era as the Turbo products, late 1980's/early 1990's, I saw only one mainframe product development organization among many that understood how to structure its internals for productivity and was willing to spend the big bucks for the horsepower that needed. It was surprising that many of the old-school mainframers resisted it. Somewhere Jim Gray wrote about quitting a job in an organization that didn't understand the developer's reality. >> ... >> Turbo-Pascal was $99 for a compiler with a complete IDE. Prior to its [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I seem to remember that Alphora was a couple of grand for a single > developer license. That jives with my recollection too. Oracle's products are priced similarly, but as I said, one of their employees almost tackled me to force a free evaluation copy into my hands. The big companies who can pay the big prices won't look at the product if they cannot hire anyone who knows it. Oracle understands that. Microsoft understands that too. It seems to me they have recently increased the prices of their development products while giving away free "evaluation" downloads. > Another big thing Kahn did was popularize the IDE, the lack of which had > been one unspoken productivity excuse for many years by informal guilds [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Somewhere Jim Gray wrote about quitting a job in an organization that > didn't understand the developer's reality. Interesting. As far as I am concerned, things like Microsoft's Visual Studio are actually Kahn's legacy. I remember the entirely unusable m editor Microsoft included with its C compiler prior to Turbo-Pascal and how much more usable pwb, their response to Turbo-Pascal's IDE, was. > I remember the entirely unusable m editor Microsoft included > with its C compiler prior to Turbo-Pascal Ahh! Ahh! Ahh! <runs screaming from room> Marshall > Turbo-Pascal was $99 for a compiler with a complete IDE. That sort of pricing was revolutionary at the time, but I don't think it would be sufficiently low today. Unless we are talking about C++ or Java, languages with the awesome might of an enormous corporate entity behind them, I think the only price that will fly in today's world is free dollars and nothing cents. The languages that are gaining some tiny traction in a crowded marketplace are things like Perl, PHP, Python, Javascript, Ruby, etc. They are all free. Meanwhile a language like Digital Mars' "D" (no relation to TTM) which is some fair degree of technical sophistication, is finding that $FREE is too high a price for most people. Marshall > I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol > has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the > concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence. I am building one or trying to for the new db core I have built. (No indexes, no other access than disk) I first designed a computing that first separate the logical from the physical then the logical from the media layer. The media layer gathers all protocols and methods that handle both designer and end user view. See related thread for more info. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.