5 ms·

Yeah, but saying "I want to use SQL" and "I don't want to use NULL or ternary logic" is a bit like saying "I want to use the existing datetime types" and "I wan

Yeah, but saying "I want to use SQL" and "I don't want to use NULL or ternary logic" is a bit like saying "I want to use the existing datetime types" and "I want all years to have 10 months, all months to have 30 days, etc." Or like saying, "I want everything to use integers" and "I need fractional components." Your requirements break the abstraction not because the system is constrained, but because you're breaking the conceptual model that's the foundation of what you're trying to use. It's not a language problem. It's not a data problem. It's not a computing problem at all. It's applying the wrong conceptual model to meet your needs. That isn't a problem with the conceptual model, either, since plenty of people use it very successfully.

lmm 8y ago
> Your requirements break the abstraction not because the system is constrained, but because you're breaking the conceptual model that's the foundation of what you're trying to use. How so? Elsewhere in the thread it's claimed that the original relational model didn't have nulls, which is what I'd expect.
- da_chicken 8y ago
  Relational algebra doesn't have nulls, but there's a difference between the mathematical theory and concepts and the reality of a relational system. As I mention elsewhere, Codd's own list of rules for a relational database [0] explicitly require nulls (see Rule 3). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codd%27s_12_rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codd%27s_12_rules
  - lmm 8y ago
    I don't see any entanglement with the rest of the rules, or with what makes a relational database a relational database. "A systemic way to represent missing and inapplicable information" may be necessary, but better alternatives to null are imaginable. A relational database without nulls sounds like an ML without exceptions: actually a pretty good idea.

lmm 8y ago

> Your requirements break the abstraction not because the system is constrained, but because you're breaking the conceptual model that's the foundation of what you're trying to use. How so? Elsewhere in the thread it's claimed that the original relational model didn't have nulls, which is what I'd expect.

da_chicken 8y ago
Relational algebra doesn't have nulls, but there's a difference between the mathematical theory and concepts and the reality of a relational system. As I mention elsewhere, Codd's own list of rules for a relational database [0] explicitly require nulls (see Rule 3). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codd%27s_12_rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codd%27s_12_rules
- lmm 8y ago
  I don't see any entanglement with the rest of the rules, or with what makes a relational database a relational database. "A systemic way to represent missing and inapplicable information" may be necessary, but better alternatives to null are imaginable. A relational database without nulls sounds like an ML without exceptions: actually a pretty good idea.