3 ms·
Arguably not a single statement that you have made in your overly hasty second post is true: This article was so absurd that I wanted to make sure I addressed
by giardini 17y ago
Arguably not a single statement that you have made in your overly hasty second post is true:
This article was so absurd that I wanted to make sure I addressed it exactly the way I wanted to (which I did).
The letter was on-point at the time: the ACM believed it to be relevant.
He was begging for rebuttal. I simply complied.
You're 18 years too late! May as well rebuff Isaac Newton for missing relativity!
What difference does it make if you lose data integrity?
The common network-style (CODASYL) and hierarchical databases enforce referential integrity and are full ACID.
Both[ed. PICK,TOTAL] had columns, rows, joins, indexes, stored procedures, and triggers.
Indexes, stored procedures and triggers are implementation details and are not part of relational database theory per se. None are required for a database to be relational: none guarantee that a database is relational. And to be pedantic, neither are "rows" and "columns" part of relational theory: the proper nomenclature is "tuple" and "attribute".