Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:23:20 +0300
From: Dmitry Turin <sql4-en@narod.ru>
Reply-To: Dmitry Turin <sql4-en@narod.ru>
Message-ID: <17323140312.20070412142320@narod.ru>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: un-triviality is saved
In-Reply-To: <20070411134953.GC22510@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
References: <20070411134953.GC22510@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>What does this do that inheritance doesn't already do? I don't think I see anything.

- So, we have proved, that all, what you offer to make on your a-a-a...
  Fortran, is possible to make on assembler.
- First, I know this without you, second, speech was not about that.

Newness is not "what", newness is "how" !

As to processing data,
new way allow to think in natural terms of tree, instead in artificial
terms of Decart's production and PL-extension for SQL.

As to communication,
new way allow to extract XML from database directly, without any
gasket (php, etc) - that is VERY important to untrained, inexperienced user.
Direct way open gates (doors) for applied specialists !

>> We speak about database, thus what user wants to do is
>> predetermined partly - there are at least two things: database and
>> visualizer (browser is only one case).

>This sounds to me entirely like a user-interface problem.

Situation is system.
And as any item, it has system's characteristics.
What's about difficulty:
difficulty-of-request + difficulty-of-transportation = invariant.

 If you make request without transport's possibility,
 then you must to enter one more language!
 It's very, very bad for un-experienced user.

And the main: un-triviality (un-banality) is saved !!!
you are forced to get this un-triviality in other language.

 But in addition to un-triviality, you have place of dock
 between SQL and other language.

Representation of data as tree (instead of as matrix) is not aim itself,
it's sideline-result.

---

>We don't need to make SQL more complicated (and less relational)

There are two question: "more complicated" and "less relational".

First:
SQL doesn't loss and doesn't gain any functional characteristics.
SQL does not become more complicated.

Second:
SQL doesn't loss and doesn't gain any relational characteristics, they are saved.
SQL does not become less relational.

>point of SQL was to move away from the hierarchical model

"Was", pay attention.
It doesn't mean, that it should be always.
Let's distinguis between two characteristics: harmness and orthodoxality.
Orthodoxality is not argument, i think.

AS> inexperienced user are willing to learn

What about user want to learn, user think:
what is the least, so is the best.
Minimum quantity of tools is the best.
This is fact instead of opinion.