6 ms·

All of the fields you've listed are largely about the representation of data. A database is simply data that's structured to support an algorithm that models s

All of the fields you've listed are largely about the representation of data. A database is simply data that's structured to support an algorithm that models some aspect of reality based on that data.

quonn 12y ago
Sure you can say, everything inside a computer is about representing data, so all is the same. But it's not particularly useful to do that.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  >you can say, everything inside a computer is about representing data hence: "The study of databases intersects almost every topic in computer science"
  - quonn 12y ago
    I just claimed this point of view is useless, so you can't just pick it up as if I agreed. Furthermore data representation in that broad sense is more related to data structures, not databases. Really, we all know what a database is. It is something very different from, say, a block cipher.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      You claimed that point of view was useless, but you didn't argue why it was useless. My point of view is that none of "AI/Machine Learning/Computer Vision, Computer Graphics, Numerics/Simulation, Robotics, Bioinformatics, Computer Architecture or Cryptography" can be implemented (or even well conceptualized) without figuring out how they are to store, retrieve, encode, efficiently memoize, guarantee consistency or atomicity, or apply bulk transformations to their data. It's silly to dispute that databases touch all areas of computing by simply declaring that databases touching all areas of computing is meaningless, because it's obvious that databases would touch all areas of computing, because computers are data storage, retrieval, and processing devices. Maybe you're restricting your definition to RDMS (while mentally drawing some arbitrary sharp distinction between data structures and databases.) >Really, we all know what a database is. This is simply a declaration. If you know what a database is, define it, then make your case about what areas of computing that it is irrelevant to. Argument by common sense is empty.

quonn 12y ago

Sure you can say, everything inside a computer is about representing data, so all is the same. But it's not particularly useful to do that.

pessimizer 12y ago
>you can say, everything inside a computer is about representing data hence: "The study of databases intersects almost every topic in computer science"
- quonn 12y ago
  I just claimed this point of view is useless, so you can't just pick it up as if I agreed. Furthermore data representation in that broad sense is more related to data structures, not databases. Really, we all know what a database is. It is something very different from, say, a block cipher.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    You claimed that point of view was useless, but you didn't argue why it was useless. My point of view is that none of "AI/Machine Learning/Computer Vision, Computer Graphics, Numerics/Simulation, Robotics, Bioinformatics, Computer Architecture or Cryptography" can be implemented (or even well conceptualized) without figuring out how they are to store, retrieve, encode, efficiently memoize, guarantee consistency or atomicity, or apply bulk transformations to their data. It's silly to dispute that databases touch all areas of computing by simply declaring that databases touching all areas of computing is meaningless, because it's obvious that databases would touch all areas of computing, because computers are data storage, retrieval, and processing devices. Maybe you're restricting your definition to RDMS (while mentally drawing some arbitrary sharp distinction between data structures and databases.) >Really, we all know what a database is. This is simply a declaration. If you know what a database is, define it, then make your case about what areas of computing that it is irrelevant to. Argument by common sense is empty.