Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!news-out.news.tds.net!newsreading01.news.tds.net!86597e80!not-for-mail From: "David Segall" Subject: Re: Designing a structure Message-ID: X-Comment-To: comp.databases,comp.lang. Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.databases In-Reply-To: <0eadnSZXLPzX3L_VnZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@comcast.com> References: <0eadnSZXLPzX3L_VnZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@comcast.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=IBM437 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Gateway: time.synchro.net [Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.92] Lines: 55 Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:21:38 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 96.60.20.240 X-Complaints-To: news@tds.net X-Trace: newsreading01.news.tds.net 1303917698 96.60.20.240 (Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:21:38 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:21:38 CDT Organization: TDS.net Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.databases:81 To: comp.databases,comp.lang. Lew wrote: >David Segall wrote: >> We seem to have an irreconcilable disagreement that is based on >> different views of "true and correct". I think that chocolate cake is >> an important concept that we all share. You argue that real chocolate >> cake does not exist because nobody has produced a cake that is >> entirely chocolate and/or that there are zillions of different recipes >> for chocolate cake and/or that there are sound reasons for not eating >> chocolate cake. I can't refute any of those arguments. My view is that > >Straw man. That is not my argument; you have misstated my points irrevocably. > >> the chocolate cake model is "true and correct" because everyone who >> reads the desert menu knows what chocolate cake should be and because >> chocolate cake has become an important part of the menu. > >You can eat two different chocolate cakes and feel that they don't even >deserve the same name, they're so different. One can be white, the other >brown. One can have icing, the other not. One can be very sweet and moist, >the other rather dry and not so sweet. one can be made with tons of sugar, >the other without any sugar at all. One might not even have chocolate in it, >being made with carob and still billed as "chocolate" cake. I know, I've had >them. We can never agree on this one. You see only the differences in the model, I see only the commonality. The fact that you _can_ argue about what makes a chocolate cake or a relational database makes me think that both have a "truth" that exists outside any implementation. > >Once again, you cite an example that proves my point, despite your complete >misstatement of my point. > >> It seems that you agree that we have a common understanding of a >> "relational database" or the "Alto user interface" [sic] because you can > >that's the *Palo* Alto user interface. That's not even the name of the >interface; it's simply where it was developed, at the *Palo* Alto Research >Center in *Palo* Alto. I don't know how you came to think of that as the name >for the interface principles. They were developed in Palo Alto, not "Alto". >"Palo" is part of the name. Omitting the "Palo" is incorrect. The name of >the city is "Palo Alto". Do not forget the "Palo". Palo Alto. > The interface was named after the Alto computer on which it was first demonstrated. It was Xerox, not me, who chose to omit "Palo" from the name. I prefer the term "Alto user interface" because it acknowledges the origin but I agree that "graphical user interface" is much more common and I will adopt it in future posts to avoid worrying the reader. --- * Synchronet * The Whitehouse BBS --- whitehouse.hulds.com --- check it out free usenet! --- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.92 Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24