New programming language for databases

[sergei....@gmail.com]

I am a developer of new programming language platform for relational databases. Its technology enables preventing database schema updates as objects are added in process of application growth and may find use in a range of database applications.

Platform features:
- Programming logic is updated in a database without altering its schema
- Application table structures are updated in a database without altering its schema
- Interpreter resides inside a database, no application software installation
- Hierarchical tree structures are saved in a relational database and accessible by path
- Enables updates of programming logic and data schema with DML SQL statements
- Supports flow controls including variables, conditional, loops, function calls with in-out parameters

Currently tested as a working prototype. Thanks! http://sprout.internetsite.eu

[Robert Klemme]

On 11/25/2012 03:30 PM, sergei....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I am a developer of new programming language platform for relational
> databases. Its technology enables preventing database schema updates
> as objects are added in process of application growth and may find
> use in a range of database applications.

What do you mean by "objects" here? Are we talking about database
objects (tables, views...) or about objects in the sense of object
oriented programming?

> Platform features:
> - Programming logic is updated in a database without altering its schema
> - Application table structures are updated in a database without altering its schema

Changing table structure *is* a schema change.

> - Interpreter resides inside a database, no application software installation
> - Hierarchical tree structures are saved in a relational database and accessible by path
> - Enables updates of programming logic and data schema with DML SQL statements

How can a schema be changed via DML? Normally DDL is used to change the
schema.

> - Supports flow controls including variables, conditional, loops, function calls with in-out parameters
>
> Currently tested as a working prototype. Thanks! http://sprout.internetsite.eu

Hmm... There is not really much there. I am missing especially a
consistent example which demonstrates all - or at least most - of the
features. Is this for web only? At the moment I don't really see the
use case or benefits. I believe you need to spicy up your presentation
if you want to stir more interest.

Cheers

robert


PS: Now I see that you use EAV - so you basically do not have schema
changes at all - at least not on the database level.

[sergei....@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 5:24:52 AM UTC+7, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I am a developer of new programming language platform for relational
>
> > databases. Its technology enables preventing database schema updates
>
> > as objects are added in process of application growth and may find
>
> > use in a range of database applications.
>
>
>
> What do you mean by "objects" here? Are we talking about database
>
> objects (tables, views...) or about objects in the sense of object
>
> oriented programming?
>

Tables, views and stored procedures as database objects.

>
>
> > Platform features:
>
> > - Programming logic is updated in a database without altering its schema
>
> > - Application table structures are updated in a database without altering its schema
>
>
>
> Changing table structure *is* a schema change.
>
>
>
> > - Interpreter resides inside a database, no application software installation
>
> > - Hierarchical tree structures are saved in a relational database and accessible by path
>
> > - Enables updates of programming logic and data schema with DML SQL statements
>
>
>
> How can a schema be changed via DML? Normally DDL is used to change the
>
> schema.
>
>

This platform has data schema that contains EAV storage mechanism and metadata descriptors of entities that it stores. It can describe and store definition of objects like database tables or program logic trees of functions. Thus when database objects are created it is committed in db with DML.

>
> > - Supports flow controls including variables, conditional, loops, function calls with in-out parameters
>
> >
>
> > Currently tested as a working prototype. Thanks! http://sprout.internetsite.eu
>
>
>
> Hmm... There is not really much there. I am missing especially a
>
> consistent example which demonstrates all - or at least most - of the
>
> features. Is this for web only? At the moment I don't really see the
>
> use case or benefits. I believe you need to spicy up your presentation
>
> if you want to stir more interest.
>
>

It is ongoing work more will be posted soon.

>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> robert
>
>
>
>
>
> PS: Now I see that you use EAV - so you basically do not have schema
>
> changes at all - at least not on the database level.

The platform can query database tables physically created in database schema or tables created and contained within its storage mechanism and table function that accesses it.

[Harry Tuttle]

sergei....@gmail.com, 27.11.2012 04:07:

> This platform has data schema that contains EAV storage mechanism and
> metadata descriptors of entities that it stores.

So you are implementing a database using a database. What's the point in that?

This doesn't scale and is a nightmare to do regular SQL queries on.

What's bad about DDL to change a schema definition (in the background it essentially does exactly
the same as your system does: it updates metatables that contain the definition of tables and
other database objects.

[sergei....@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:30:57 PM UTC+7, Harry Tuttle wrote:
>
> > This platform has data schema that contains EAV storage mechanism and
>
> > metadata descriptors of entities that it stores.
>
>
>
> So you are implementing a database using a database. What's the point in that?
>

To provide a programming language of higher level in relation to procedural SQL, automate EAV schema interface, functionality to save hierarchical trees in relational tables.

>
>
> This doesn't scale and is a nightmare to do regular SQL queries on.
>

There is a function to query EAV tables like any regular database table via table function and scale by clustering and partitioning.

>
>
> What's bad about DDL to change a schema definition (in the background it essentially does exactly
>
> the same as your system does: it updates metatables that contain the definition of tables and
>
> other database objects.

Executing DDL is not exactly same as it needs "alter schema" access and it may be a concern in systems with frequently changing program logic. An advantage is querying database schema without accessing its physical schema definition. For example function check_input(<column path>, <value>) which may not work in regular procedural SQL since schema definition is not always accessible to client queries.

[Arthur Ward]

sergei....@gmail.com wrote:

> Executing DDL is not exactly same as it needs "alter schema" access
> and it may be a concern in systems with frequently changing program
> logic. An advantage is querying database schema without accessing
> its physical schema definition. For example function
> check_input(<column path>, <value>) which may not work in regular
> procedural SQL since schema definition is not always accessible to
> client queries.

LoL.

Really, PMSL!

You really think you're the first genius to dream up this bullshit
"solution"?

By all means piss your youth and energy away on this if it makes you
happy, but don't come looking for approval, because we're not polite
enough to pretend.

I honestly can't believe you actually seemed to write "EAV" with a
straight face.

Art

[sergei....@gmail.com]

>
> LoL.
>
>
>
> Really, PMSL!
>
>
>
> You really think you're the first genius to dream up this bullshit
>
> "solution"?
>

Not sure, but all EAV schemas I've seen and worked with contain hard-coded metadata infrastructure (columns named with specific attributes for example).

In my platform the metadata is stored in physically same EAV repo that keeps table data while the schema does not contain assumptions of any kind about application data structure.


I believe the topic is exhausted.
Cheers.

[Arthur Ward]

sergei....@gmail.com wrote:

> I believe the topic is exhausted.

There never was a topic mate. But yeah, we're done.

Art

[emilbarton]

I would not answer to your message in offending ways for two reasons
(apart from basic politeness):

1. I'm curious about new results in general;
2. I'm about to propose on Github something similar (in a couple of weeks
if everything is ok);

With accessibility of information as ultimate goal, my work is much less
sustained theorically, and more prone to dramatical decrease in
efficiency also, but maybe we'll find ideas to share. Let's keep in
touch! In the meantime, I'll try to understand your contribution.

Regards!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Robert Klemme]

On 11/27/2012 03:29 PM, Arthur Ward wrote:

> By all means piss your youth and energy away on this if it makes you
> happy, but don't come looking for approval, because we're not polite
> enough to pretend.

You do not have to pretend to be polite.

Regards

robert

[Arthur Ward]

emilbarton wrote:

> I would not answer to your message in offending ways for two reasons
> (apart from basic politeness):

Some ideas are so dumb they need to be nipped in the bud. Mincing your
words does no one any good when the idea is that dumb.

We can't put the offender's head on a pikestaff as a warning to others
but we can make it clear he's a bone-head and not to be imitated.

> 1. I'm curious about new results in general;

I think in the context of this thread it's fair to say your being so
open minded your brain has fallen out.

> 2. I'm about to propose on Github something similar (in a couple of weeks
> if everything is ok);

Dear god. Save us from these naive blockheads. Where do they keep
coming from? Is there a way we can fumigate for them?

> With accessibility of information as ultimate goal, my work is much less
> sustained theorically,

A naive blockhead, by your own admission. You aer another one who
thinks he's the first to solve the problem. The arrogance and
self-belief is so grotesque it is comical.

> and more prone to dramatical decrease in
> efficiency

Just when I thought you couldn't be more arroganant and delusional. What
an ass.

> also, but maybe we'll find ideas to share. Let's keep in
> touch! In the meantime, I'll try to understand your contribution.

Yeah, you two seem to be peas in a pod.

I hope you are only wasting your own time and money on this crap.

Art

[Arthur Ward]

Robert Klemme wrote:

> You do not have to pretend to be polite.

Who's being polite?

Politeness *is* pretending. Sincerity isn't politeness.

Art

[emilbarton]

On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 13:49:25 +0000, Arthur Ward wrote:

Sun, 02 Dec 2012 13:49:25 +0000, Arthur Ward wrote:
...

You can send me a private email and we'll discuss about your anger
problem if you want.

> I hope you are only wasting your own time and money on this crap.

Sorry. :)

[Arthur Ward]

emilbarton wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 13:49:25 +0000, Arthur Ward wrote:
>
> Sun, 02 Dec 2012 13:49:25 +0000, Arthur Ward wrote:
> ...
>
> You can send me a private email and we'll discuss about your anger
> problem if you want.
>

I don't want to engage you in private. I want everyone who reads this
thread to wonder WHY I'd be angry.

Unlike you maybe a few of them will realize there might be a good
reason.

You of course are oblivious of what Sergei is doing wrong so you assume
the problem is just some psychological defect of mine.

I don't want to save you or Sergei from yourselves. I want to undermine
your message, to create constructive doubt. If just one or two more
people scrutinize your silly ideas properly then I will have done
some good.

Art

[Robert Klemme]

There is a difference between sincerity and disrespect. Even if one
does not agree or thinks suggested ideas are not worthwhile pursuing one
can still communicate that in a respectful way.

In absence of sympathy politeness is not just pretending but expresses
the notion that everybody is entitled to respectful treatment.

Regards

robert

[Arthur Ward]

Robert Klemme wrote:

> On 12/02/2012 02:51 PM, Arthur Ward wrote:
>> Robert Klemme wrote:
>>
>>> You do not have to pretend to be polite.
>>
>> Who's being polite?
>>
>> Politeness *is* pretending. Sincerity isn't politeness.
>
> There is a difference between sincerity and disrespect.

Are you suggesting that I should feign "respect" when it is my sincere
position that the OP and his defenders are not just wrong, but lazy and
arrogant?

What kind of respect is it when it is only pretended? How much can you
value someone's apparent respect for you if you always have to wonder if
they are faking it?

> Even if one
> does not agree or thinks suggested ideas are not worthwhile pursuing one
> can still communicate that in a respectful way.

One can, but in the case of EAV it is an idea that has been
comprehensively shown to be wrong-headed so many times, in so many ways
that it is a public good to cut across it to save everyone a lot
of time. It does no one any favors to show the idea respect it
doesn't deserve and to drag the whole weary argument out with elaborate
courtesies just to save the feelings of someone selling snake-oil.

> In absence of sympathy politeness is not just pretending but expresses
> the notion that everybody is entitled to respectful treatment.

No they are not, and a moment's reflection should reveal countless
examples of why that is just trite sentiment. How do you feel about
people who promote fake cancer cures?

There is being mistaken, which is forgiveable and which deserves patient
correction, and then there is lazy but arrogant, which deserves a
figurative smack up the side of the head.

Everyone is entitled to honesty. Sometimes its most beneficial when its
bare-knuckle honesty. Giving someone a wake-up call shows respect.
Encouraging them to remain deluded, with sugar-coated euphemisms does
not.

Art

[sergei....@gmail.com]

Blog page is up:

http://sproutpl.wordpress.com/

[Arthur Ward]

sergei....@gmail.com wrote:

> Blog page is up:
>
> http://sproutpl.wordpress.com/

I see you're not taking any chances that a commenter might ask awkward
questions there.

La-la-la-I-can't-hear-you _could_ work. It doesn't usually, but you've
already made it clear you think it will be different for you.

Good luck to you.

Art

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:49:57 +0000 (UTC), Arthur Ward
<art....@noreply.xx> wrote:

>Robert Klemme wrote:
>
>> On 12/02/2012 02:51 PM, Arthur Ward wrote:
>>> Robert Klemme wrote:
>>>
>>>> You do not have to pretend to be polite.
>>>
>>> Who's being polite?
>>>
>>> Politeness *is* pretending. Sincerity isn't politeness.
>>
>> There is a difference between sincerity and disrespect.
>
>Are you suggesting that I should feign "respect" when it is my sincere
>position that the OP and his defenders are not just wrong, but lazy and
>arrogant?

No, actually show it.

As I like to say, it is one thing to disagree, but quite another
to be disagreeable.

>What kind of respect is it when it is only pretended? How much can you
>value someone's apparent respect for you if you always have to wonder if
>they are faking it?

Well, at least, they have some courtesy.

>> Even if one
>> does not agree or thinks suggested ideas are not worthwhile pursuing one
>> can still communicate that in a respectful way.
>
>One can, but in the case of EAV it is an idea that has been
>comprehensively shown to be wrong-headed so many times, in so many ways
>that it is a public good to cut across it to save everyone a lot
>of time. It does no one any favors to show the idea respect it
>doesn't deserve and to drag the whole weary argument out with elaborate
>courtesies just to save the feelings of someone selling snake-oil.

Ah, but if you are trying to get people to see that they might be
mistaken, your approach is very unlikely to work.

>> In absence of sympathy politeness is not just pretending but expresses
>> the notion that everybody is entitled to respectful treatment.
>
>No they are not, and a moment's reflection should reveal countless
>examples of why that is just trite sentiment. How do you feel about
>people who promote fake cancer cures?

That they are criminal. That is a legal matter. Manners are
not.

>There is being mistaken, which is forgiveable and which deserves patient
>correction, and then there is lazy but arrogant, which deserves a
>figurative smack up the side of the head.

Why give such so much attention?

>Everyone is entitled to honesty. Sometimes its most beneficial when its
>bare-knuckle honesty. Giving someone a wake-up call shows respect.
>Encouraging them to remain deluded, with sugar-coated euphemisms does
>not.

I very much disagree with you, but in this post, I have not
insulted you.

It is possible to make a strong point without being rude.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Arthur Ward]

Gene Wirchenko wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:49:57 +0000 (UTC), Arthur Ward
> <art....@noreply.xx> wrote:
>
>>Are you suggesting that I should feign "respect" when it is my sincere
>>position that the OP and his defenders are not just wrong, but lazy and
>>arrogant?
>
> No, actually show it.

Respect is to show deference, esteem or honor. If none of those have
been earned, or they've been lost, showing respect is feigning it.
Pretending. Lying.

> As I like to say, it is one thing to disagree, but quite another
> to be disagreeable.

Irrelevant, though true.

>>What kind of respect is it when it is only pretended? How much can you
>>value someone's apparent respect for you if you always have to wonder if
>>they are faking it?
>
> Well, at least, they have some courtesy.

You debase the concept of courtesy. False courtesy is fawning.

>>One can, but in the case of EAV it is an idea that has been
>>comprehensively shown to be wrong-headed so many times, in so many ways
>>that it is a public good to cut across it to save everyone a lot
>>of time. It does no one any favors to show the idea respect it
>>doesn't deserve and to drag the whole weary argument out with elaborate
>>courtesies just to save the feelings of someone selling snake-oil.
>
> Ah, but if you are trying to get people to see that they might be
> mistaken, your approach is very unlikely to work.

I am under no illusion that I will ever help the OP. I am heckling.
All I want to do is raise awareness so that perhaps one or two other
people wonder why anyone would get so bent out of shape about EAV and
look into it a bit more carefully. I am trying to deny the OP a free
ride here.

>>No they are not, and a moment's reflection should reveal countless
>>examples of why that is just trite sentiment. How do you feel about
>>people who promote fake cancer cures?
>
> That they are criminal. That is a legal matter. Manners are
> not.

Irrelevant, though true. Address the argument.

>>There is being mistaken, which is forgiveable and which deserves patient
>>correction, and then there is lazy but arrogant, which deserves a
>>figurative smack up the side of the head.
>
> Why give such so much attention?

To deny lazy egotists the free ride they seem to expect.

>>Everyone is entitled to honesty. Sometimes its most beneficial when its
>>bare-knuckle honesty. Giving someone a wake-up call shows respect.
>>Encouraging them to remain deluded, with sugar-coated euphemisms does
>>not.
>
> I very much disagree with you, but in this post, I have not
> insulted you.

I am sure both you and Robert will agree I've not insulted you either.
In fact I have treated you both with a degree of respect. You can
properly value that because you know I don't fake it. Sadly I wonder if
both you and Robert think I am a shit. I can't trust either of you
because you've both told me people should lie about that sort of
thing.

> It is possible to make a strong point without being rude.

Irrelevant and glib, but true.

Art

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:02:18 +0000 (UTC), Arthur Ward
<art....@noreply.xx> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote:

[snip]

>> Ah, but if you are trying to get people to see that they might be
>> mistaken, your approach is very unlikely to work.
>
>I am under no illusion that I will ever help the OP. I am heckling.
>All I want to do is raise awareness so that perhaps one or two other
>people wonder why anyone would get so bent out of shape about EAV and
>look into it a bit more carefully. I am trying to deny the OP a free
>ride here.

As to why someone would get so bent out of shape, people might
wonder if the problem is with you rather than the OP's idea. By being
rude about it, it is unlikely you will succeed in raising awareness.
You are more likely to encourage such practices.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Arthur Ward]

Gene Wirchenko wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:02:18 +0000 (UTC), Arthur Ward
> <art....@noreply.xx> wrote:
>
>>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Ah, but if you are trying to get people to see that they might be
>>> mistaken, your approach is very unlikely to work.
>>
>>I am under no illusion that I will ever help the OP. I am heckling.
>>All I want to do is raise awareness so that perhaps one or two other
>>people wonder why anyone would get so bent out of shape about EAV and
>>look into it a bit more carefully. I am trying to deny the OP a free
>>ride here.
>
> As to why someone would get so bent out of shape, people might
> wonder if the problem is with you rather than the OP's idea.

If I had only been rude people would be quite right to suspect I am
unhinged. But I told the OP exactly why he was wrong, and what to do
instead. My bluntness was justified and my rudeness was to catch the
eye. Evidently it worked.

> By being
> rude about it, it is unlikely you will succeed in raising awareness.
> You are more likely to encourage such practices.

The logic leading to that conclusion completely eludes me. The worst
that will happen is I will get ignored.

Art

[Robert Klemme]

On 12/13/2012 10:02 AM, Arthur Ward wrote:

> Respect is to show deference, esteem or honor. If none of those have
> been earned, or they've been lost, showing respect is feigning it.

There we disagree: there are different kinds of respect, one that can be
earned and one that everybody deserves because of his humanity. You
talk about respect not earned but it seems to me you deny the other form
as well.

> Pretending. Lying.

That is just one way of looking at it. By treating someone with respect
whom one does not like one acknowledges that he is human as well. No
sympathy needs to be faked for that. Also, politeness and honesty are
not exclusive. I can be polite and offer honest disagreement at the
same time.

>> Ah, but if you are trying to get people to see that they might be
>> mistaken, your approach is very unlikely to work.
>
> I am under no illusion that I will ever help the OP. I am heckling.
> All I want to do is raise awareness so that perhaps one or two other
> people wonder why anyone would get so bent out of shape about EAV and
> look into it a bit more carefully. I am trying to deny the OP a free
> ride here.

I believe by now attention has been drawn to a completely different
subject - which might or might not help your goal.

> Sadly I wonder if both you and Robert think I am a shit.

If you consider that option you must be assuming that we do that based
on some of your prior communication. Since you entered this discussion
about style where you elaborate your good intentions it must be
important for you not to be viewed as a "shit". What I do not
understand: why do you employ a style of communication of which you
assume that it has potential to harm your reputation?

Regards

robert

[Arthur Ward]

Robert Klemme wrote:

> On 12/13/2012 10:02 AM, Arthur Ward wrote:
>
>> Respect is to show deference, esteem or honor. If none of those have
>> been earned, or they've been lost, showing respect is feigning it.
>
> There we disagree: there are different kinds of respect, one that can be
> earned and one that everybody deserves because of his humanity. You
> talk about respect not earned but it seems to me you deny the other form
> as well.

I am sure you have something nice in mind when you use the word respect
but you are using your own definition of it. The only real meaning of
any word is its shared meaning. I can't productively engage you if you
give unconventional meanings to words.

>> Pretending. Lying.
>
> That is just one way of looking at it. By treating someone with respect
> whom one does not like one acknowledges that he is human as well. No
> sympathy needs to be faked for that.

You are carrying on like I was wishing him dead. I said he was a
fucking imbecile and lazy. If he'd kept his stupid enthusiasms to
himself I'd have been as civil as you like.

> Also, politeness and honesty are
> not exclusive. I can be polite and offer honest disagreement at the
> same time.

Irrelevant, although true. (You and Gene same to have the same logical
tic.)

>>> Ah, but if you are trying to get people to see that they might be
>>> mistaken, your approach is very unlikely to work.
>>
>> I am under no illusion that I will ever help the OP. I am heckling.
>> All I want to do is raise awareness so that perhaps one or two other
>> people wonder why anyone would get so bent out of shape about EAV and
>> look into it a bit more carefully. I am trying to deny the OP a free
>> ride here.
>
> I believe by now attention has been drawn to a completely different
> subject - which might or might not help your goal.

Yeah, but I think we're both getting a lot out of this new quarrel. I
know I am.

>> Sadly I wonder if both you and Robert think I am a shit.
>
> If you consider that option you must be assuming that we do that based
> on some of your prior communication.

Nope, it's a pure wild-ass conjecture, consistent with the facts
available but otherwise baseless. I mention it only to show the
true effect of admitting your show of courtesy is mere formula.

> Since you entered this discussion
> about style where you elaborate your good intentions it must be
> important for you not to be viewed as a "shit".

Not in the least. Valid arguments by even the vilest shits are still
valid.

> What I do not
> understand: why do you employ a style of communication of which you
> assume that it has potential to harm your reputation?

For brevity and impact. To figuratively smack the OP up side the head.
To hold his ideas up to ridicule. For color. And because I
talk like that. Unlike the OP I don't crave the esteem of anyone here.

Art

[sergei....@gmail.com]

The project is finally online http://visualdatasynthesis.com

Thanks everyone for the encouragements. :)