3 ms·
The opposite of what? There is no contention with Codd's original paper. I'd suggest that Codd's Alpha paper was lacking in the same way SQL struggles, but that
by 9rx 1y ago
The opposite of what? There is no contention with Codd's original paper. I'd suggest that Codd's Alpha paper was lacking in the same way SQL struggles, but that's a bit orthogonal to what you seem to be trying to say. I know its a bit confusing as SQL tries to name many different, independent things with the same name, but when confused it is best to become unconfused, not go off to la-la land.
- cmrdporcupine 1y agoNotably, you edited your comment after my reply :-)
- 9rx 1y agoStrangly off-topic, but if that's where you want to go, what's notable about that? Given the confusion, there should have been no rush to reply before some minor adjustments were made. That is how you ended up here in the first place. Understand first, the consider replying.