Re: SQL programming fundamentals
- From: "Rich Jesse" <rjoralist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:15:33 -0500 (CDT)
Yes, I do now see the flaw in my metaphor. In my defense, I prefaced the
thought with the "kneejerk" disclaimer, he says sheepishly. :)
OTOH, I think I'm liking my accidental omission of "database" in "designing
software". I love the idea of acclimating even non-SQL/non-DB programmers
to think in terms of relations.
A few years ago, I attended a brief seminar where Steven Feuerstein
advocated "playing" the daily Set game at http://setgame.com I encourage my
devs (and the rest of the IT department) to also visit daily with the idea
that identifying those Set relations can translate to identifying relations
in our business data and programs. It's a great simple brain game where
more complex ones like Suduko (I still can't identify swordfish and other
complex patterns w/o help) tend to turn them off.
But it's not tuple relational theory...
Rich
>>Rich wrote:
>>"relational theory knowledge is akin to needing to understand the internal
> combustion engine in order to drive"
>
> I disagree.
>
> This is like stating that the endusers of database applications need to know
> relational theory.
> They do *not*, of course.
>
> I see, you correct yourself later on:
>>"I think I *am* in favor of that requirement if the SQL professional is
> designing (* database) software"
> (*) insert by me.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
