the passing of a champion
Keith H Duggar
During a nostalgic reading of some of his posts and works related
to him, I have run by this wonderful comment of this that I just
know many in cdt will appreciate ;-)
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
> > based on what I have heard, RDb is an excuse for two ignorances:
> >
> > (1) I do not know what language to use. (answer: duhhhhhhh, lisp!!!)
> >
> > (2) I do not know what index I will want tomorrow at 3PM (answer: don't
> > quit your day job.)
>
> So you _have_ no clue. I hate it when people confirm my suspicions.
>
> People who think object-orientation is so great, have generally failed to
> grasp the value of data-driven designs despite the serious attempt at
> making such design easier to model, and think solely in terms of code-
> driven designs where their class hierarchies are poor adaptations to
> their incompetent coding styles. This is extremely depressing, as the
> interminable "software crisis" is a result of code-driven design. SGML
> and XML were attempts at promoting data-driven design that would produce
> data that was _supposedly_ independent of any application. The result is
> that people who have so little clue they should have attracted one simply
> by the sucking power of vacuum do code-driven designs in XML, which is
> _really_ retarded, and then they need to store their moronically designed
> data in databases, which is, of course, too hard given their brain-damaged
> designs, so the relational model does not "work" for them.
Apparently in his latter years he was working on some relational
concepts or implementations in Lisp. Sadly he was forever driven
from comp.lang.lisp in 2004 (by vociferous ignorance), so we may
never know much about that final work.
KHD
Keith H Duggar
The World Wide Web is built on seriously flawed theoretical
information
models. Instead of regarding information as fundamentally
relational,
such that it could have been modeled using the relational model
invented
by Edgar Codd and developed and extended by thousands of researchers
to
fully replace the conceptually flawed hierarchical and network
models
employed in early databases, the WWW has practically resurrected
these
ancient, flawed ideas and made them even less functionally and
theoret-
ically sound. The result in practical terms is that extremely
complex
access paths must be traversed for even the simplest relations and
monu-
mental amounts of text must be generated, transferred, and parsed
in
order to isolate the small relevant pieces of a complete web page
mostly
suitable for eye balls after massive amounts of processing and
rendering
to boot. By making each datum extremely difficult to access, we
can
simply forget designing a general system of relational operators
on
these relations, and the development of the large number of
processing
tools attests to the fact that a general, universal model is not
even
within conceptual reach. The problem, then, is that describing
complex
access paths with a reasonable theory is a huge waste of time when
a
simple and elegant theory exists and only requires that the
information
be organized in a much simpler way. The net effect of these flawed
mod-
els is, ironically, that information that is originally stored in
re-
lational databases is packaged and transmitted in a non-relational
way
that makes unpacking the relations arduous, tedious, and error-
prone.
The WWW has turned what is typically already open information into
clos-
ed information through sheer lack of intelligence and insight into
in-
formation science and has forced what could have been simple queries
in
a straight-forward language into massive amounts of random
guesswork.
Erik Naggum
2009-03-29
Keith H Duggar
The World Wide Web is built on seriously flawed theoretical in-
formation models. Instead of regarding information as fundamen-
tally relational, such that it could have been modeled using the
relational model invented by Edgar Codd and developed and ex-
tended by thousands of researchers to fully replace the concep-
tually flawed hierarchical and network models employed in early
databases, the WWW has practically resurrected these ancient,
flawed ideas and made them even less functionally and theoreti-
cally sound. The result in practical terms is that extremely
complex access paths must be traversed for even the simplest re-
lations and monumental amounts of text must be generated, trans-
ferred, and parsed in order to isolate the small relevant pieces
of a complete web page mostly suitable for eye balls after mas-
sive amounts of processing and rendering to boot. By making each
datum extremely difficult to access, we can simply forget design
ing a general system of relational operators on these relations,
and the development of the large number of processing tools at-
tests to the fact that a general, universal model is not even
within conceptual reach. The problem, then, is that describing
complex access paths with a reasonable theory is a huge waste of
time when a simple and elegant theory exists and only requires
that the information be organized in a much simpler way. The net
effect of these flawed models is, ironically, that information
that is originally stored in relational databases is packaged
and transmitted in a non-relational way that makes unpacking the
relations arduous, tedious, and error-prone. The WWW has turned
what is typically already open information into closed informa-
tion through sheer lack of intelligence and insight into infor-
mation science and has forced what could have been simple quer-
ies in a straight-forward language into massive amounts of ran-
dom guesswork.
Erik Naggum
2009-03-29
paul c
Interesting to see a language apostle echoing some of what Codd said.
Of course the historical view is that the fools paradise of
unnecessarily rigid and redundant structures and idiosyncratic
application interfaces will be dismantled only with several changes of
generation. Some people say even one of the essential breakthroughs,
the hyperlink, wasn't even a www invention. Granted, it was a sensible
insight that a 'world-wide-web' needs a standard but the choice of a
formatting-oriented standard,namely html, looks more and more like a
stupidity that will go down as one of history's worst. A poor choice of
standard is worse than no standard at all because it encourages
amateurish and mindless perpetuation. I'll bet Noel Coward could have
done better, at least he had the grace to turn down a knighthood.
Cimode
respectful way) does sound like a testament to future generations of
scientists. Once again, it is fascinating to observe that the post
industrial Western thirst for an immediate instutionalization of
empirical discoveries has hit the brick wall of historical science
realism. History indeed tells a totally different story. It took
*centuries* for Greek mathematical empirism to be rediscovered,
corrected and clarified by Algebra (notably by Arabs, Indians and
Persians). Why would relational model be any different ?
The truth is that a historical perspective on contemporary science is
always a far too risky endeavour. History of exact sciences is indeed
made of slow-paced truth discoveries, implementation underachievements
and rediscovered opportunities,and all of these may be separated by
centuries of forgotten formalisms.
It seems too early for the potential of the relational model to become
institutionnalized by western post industrial societies where
educational system are going down the hill, overtaken by corporate
consumerist truth-conditionning training programs. The most probable
scenario is that the relational model will probably be rediscovered
some day by some unknown scientist from Africa Asia. And quite
frankly I don't see it happening in my lifetime.
IMHO.
paul c
> On 4 juil, 19:32, paul c <toledobythe...@oohay.ac> wrote:
>> Keith H Duggar wrote:
>>> OPEN INFORMATION
> Interesting. This post mortem ghost reflexion (and I mean that in a
> respectful way) does sound like a testament to future generations of
> scientists. Once again, it is fascinating to observe that the post
> industrial Western thirst for an immediate instutionalization of
> empirical discoveries has hit the brick wall of historical science
> realism. History indeed tells a totally different story. It took
> *centuries* for Greek mathematical empirism to be rediscovered,
> corrected and clarified by Algebra (notably by Arabs, Indians and
> Persians). Why would relational model be any different ?
>
> The truth is that a historical perspective on contemporary science is
> always a far too risky endeavour. History of exact sciences is indeed
> made of slow-paced truth discoveries, implementation underachievements
> and rediscovered opportunities,and all of these may be separated by
> centuries of forgotten formalisms.
>
> It seems too early for the potential of the relational model to become
> institutionnalized by western post industrial societies where
> educational system are going down the hill, overtaken by corporate
> consumerist truth-conditionning training programs. The most probable
> scenario is that the relational model will probably be rediscovered
> some day by some unknown scientist from Africa Asia. And quite
> frankly I don't see it happening in my lifetime.
>
> IMHO.
And there were so few doing the 'rediscovering'. It makes me think that
the modern notion of mass literacy is an illusion.
Cimode
political *myth*. A convenient and self sustaining myth that
guarantees its survival by giving people the *illusion* of making
rational choices.
Yes. Empires need mythes to survive. When the mythes are not
sufficient anymore, the empire falls down.
Cimode
In other words, when irrational beliefs and mysticism are not
sufficent anymore for a governing elite to mind control people, what
remains left is the myth of mass education. Call it a MINUS operator.
Frank Hamersley
<...>
>> People who think object-orientation is so great, have generally failed to
>> grasp the value of data-driven designs despite the serious attempt at
>> making such design easier to model, and think solely in terms of code-
>> driven designs where their class hierarchies are poor adaptations to
>> their incompetent coding styles. This is extremely depressing, as the
>> interminable "software crisis" is a result of code-driven design. SGML
>> and XML were attempts at promoting data-driven design that would produce
>> data that was _supposedly_ independent of any application. The result is
>> that people who have so little clue they should have attracted one simply
>> by the sucking power of vacuum do code-driven designs in XML, which is
>> _really_ retarded, and then they need to store their moronically designed
>> data in databases, which is, of course, too hard given their brain-damaged
>> designs, so the relational model does not "work" for them.
Agreed (by moi at least) but which came first in this space?
Was it (a) Gen Y instant gratification and no conception of staying on
topic for more than seconds if it is not "fun" or
(b) just the inability of most carbon based types to think like silicon
or foresee the impending mess.
Yours curmugeonly.
Frank Hamersley
[...]
> The WWW has turned
> what is typically already open information into closed informa-
> tion through sheer lack of intelligence and insight into infor-
> mation science and has forced what could have been simple quer-
> ies in a straight-forward language into massive amounts of ran-
> dom guesswork.
Just playing Devils avocate ... is this lossiness and non determinism
any different to the evolution/collation over the past several thousand
(or more) years of the entire corpus of knowlege (at least that part
that is generally accepted as correct).
That said, given we do have better repositories than (say) the scrolls
in Carthage, I feel we should be obliged to resist the disorder
described by Erik.
Frank.
Ed Prochak
wrote:
Do we have better repositories? When our electronics based
civilization falls, will the next be able to "read our texts"?
Ed
---
"Do you think that is air you are breathing? ... Mmm" -- Morpheus
Gene Wirchenko
>On Jul 4, 10:23 pm, Frank Hamersley <terabitemigh...@bigpond.com>
>wrote:
[snip]
>> That said, given we do have better repositories than (say) the scrolls
>> in Carthage, I feel we should be obliged to resist the disorder
>> described by Erik.
Given? I do not think so.
>Do we have better repositories? When our electronics based
>civilization falls, will the next be able to "read our texts"?
The answer may well be NO! See
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/25.44.html#subj7.1
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Cimode
Given the fact that some of Carthage archives survived many centuries,
only arrogance could one claim the same thing will happen today's data
bags.
Frank Hamersley
> On 9 juil, 00:47, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>> Ed Prochak <edproc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 4, 10:23 pm, Frank Hamersley <terabitemigh...@bigpond.com>
>>> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> That said, given we do have better repositories than (say) the scrolls
>>>> in Carthage, I feel we should be obliged to resist the disorder
>>>> described by Erik.
>> Given? I do not think so.
>>
> He he he
> Given the fact that some of Carthage archives survived many centuries,
> only arrogance could one claim the same thing will happen today's data
> bags.
Define "some"!
In terms of a percentage I got the impression from Carl that
(tragically) a huge body of knowledge was destroyed. Very much the same
as the fragments of original Ancient Greek intellect that was preserved
by the Muslims from the rampages of Western Europe civilising itself.
Cheers, Frank.