3 ms·
While I am completely in agreement with the intent of this aphorism, and also what the article says about the relational model, I feel this is (as aphorisms ten
by mannykannot 5y ago
While I am completely in agreement with the intent of this aphorism, and also what the article says about the relational model, I feel this is (as aphorisms tend to be) something of an exaggeration. I think, for example, that it would be difficult to deduce the rules of cricket from its scoresheets.
Tell me your tables' semantics, however, and I think one could do much better. ..
I suspect that, when Brooks made that comment, he was probably thinking mostly in terms of programs for entering and reporting on that data. We're doing a lot more now.
- gpderetta 5y agoWell, the scoresheet is not enough of course, you need all the "datastructures" (field design, player number and layout, equipment, etc). edit: but yes, it can be a bit of an exaggeration. Figuring out all the red-black tree rules from just the structure definitions, relations and and invariants is probably a bit of a stretch for most.
- mannykannot 5y agoOK, I'll grant you all that, but not the rules of play. Do you think that would be enough to figure out how to fill out a scoresheet correctly, without operational observations (i.e. without having previously watched a number of games or being told how it is played?) (As I don't play or watch the game myself, I am not certain it would not be possible, but I feel doing this would be difficult for almost any game.)