Prev: Possible to select a sample rows based on a column value?
Next: Query for merge column
From: Geoff Schaller on 15 May 2010 09:02
<rofl>

I have this picture in my mind now of someone old enough to wear pyjamas
all day.

But I think you're right. I don't think he has had 'current' work for a
long time now. I have some friends like that. Worked in IT for more than
30 years. The last thing they used for storage was half inch magnetic
tape. ...but they still consider themselves IT experts!

One of my friends has these certificates all over his wall from IBM - he
was instrumental in designing IBM's array processor (Gariepy is the
surname, just in case someone might know). The issue is how this might
relate to modern IT systems. He (if he was still here with us) would
acknowledge the knowledge chasm. But would our Joe?

Joe gives me the impression that he is one of those interminable book
writers. Just writes books because potentially it makes money. At least
until the readers wake up to the antiquity of the advice <g>.

Geoff




"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson(a)torver.net> wrote in message
news:4DB52AAD-8EA8-44AA-B821-DD679F1C2540(a)microsoft.com:

> > That has let me earn a good living for 25 years, correcting code that
> > was written without a clear spec and no data integrity
>
>
> Interesting give away there --celko--
>
> How long is it since you had regular work? A decade?
>
> Your attitude, your arrogance and your in ability to accept when you are
> wrong means you are mainly unemployable.
>
> --ROGGIE--
>
> "--CELKO--" <jcelko212(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:f5deba13-4fc8-4e3a-a387-d71225391be3(a)k42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Sorry, but I disagree. Adding that really clutters up the posting.
> >>> There are many questions and answers posted here where no DDL is shown
> >>> and they are easy enough to understand. <<
> >
>
> > For the last few decades, skeleton DDL has been Netiquette in SQL
> > newsgroups and forums. The reason is that the DDL is more accurate and
> > compact than a long vague narrative.
> >
>
> >>> Some questions may require DDL but I tend to believe that they are the
> >>> exception rather than the rule. <<
> >
>
> > Based on writing eight books, 900+ articles and two decades answering
> > SQL questions on line, I disagree :) A full schema is not required,
> > but even the most minimal DDL gives us at least data element names.
> >
>
> >>> A generic solution should be independent of DDL. <<
> >
>
> > No. The DDL gives the data elements and relationships. This is like
> > saying that you don't need to know what surface you are using (plane,
> > sphere, saddle) to do geometry. Let me give you a simple example with
> > some skeleton Nested Sets models:
> >
> > CREATE TABLE Tree1
> > (node_name CHAR (15),
> > rgt INTEGER,
> > lft INTEGER);
> >
> > CREATE TABLE Tree2
> > (node_name CHAR (15) PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
> > rgt INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE,
> > lft INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE);
> >
> > CREATE TABLE Tree3
> > (node_name CHAR (15) NOT NULL,
> > rgt INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE,
> > lft INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE,
> > PRIMARY KEY (lft, rgt));
> >
> > So much for a generic model! Tree1 is pretty much useless, but is
> > minimal. Tree2 gets the NULLs out of way, gives us some uniqueness.
> > Tree3 allows the same value to appear in many places; Tree2 does
> > not.
> >
>
> >>> I usually take it from there and transform it into a working solution. I
> >>> think many developers will agree with me on that. <<
> >
>
> > That has let me earn a good living for 25 years, correcting code that
> > was written without a clear spec and no data integrity

From: Tony Rogerson on 15 May 2010 09:14
> Joe gives me the impression that he is one of those interminable book
> writers. Just writes books because potentially it makes money. At least
> until the readers wake up to the antiquity of the advice <g>.

I speculate that's why he's chosen to troll the Microsoft community, he's
got no new ideas of his own and is too lazy to research so basically just
uses the forums as a method of getting new content for his books.

The worse thing about all this is that if he hadn't started trolling the
public forums people wouldn't realise just how bad he is!

To give him some credit, in the past 3 months he's started to behave himself
a lot better - he does change sometimes, basically - you can tell when he
hits the bottle.

I'm doing a MSc in BI at the moment, I've got addicted to the Relational
Model so am soaking up all that I can around it - just spent two days with
Chris Date (extremely nice and modest guy) in Edinburgh, not one article
I've come across in my research mentions celko - he's basically a nobody.

Tony.


"Geoff Schaller" <geoffx(a)softxwareobjectives.com.au> wrote in message
news:RXwHn.24948$pv.20461(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> <rofl>
>
> I have this picture in my mind now of someone old enough to wear pyjamas
> all day.
>
> But I think you're right. I don't think he has had 'current' work for a
> long time now. I have some friends like that. Worked in IT for more than
> 30 years. The last thing they used for storage was half inch magnetic
> tape. ...but they still consider themselves IT experts!
>
> One of my friends has these certificates all over his wall from IBM - he
> was instrumental in designing IBM's array processor (Gariepy is the
> surname, just in case someone might know). The issue is how this might
> relate to modern IT systems. He (if he was still here with us) would
> acknowledge the knowledge chasm. But would our Joe?
>
> Joe gives me the impression that he is one of those interminable book
> writers. Just writes books because potentially it makes money. At least
> until the readers wake up to the antiquity of the advice <g>.
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
>
> "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson(a)torver.net> wrote in message
> news:4DB52AAD-8EA8-44AA-B821-DD679F1C2540(a)microsoft.com:
>
>> > That has let me earn a good living for 25 years, correcting code that
>> > was written without a clear spec and no data integrity
>>
>>
>> Interesting give away there --celko--
>>
>> How long is it since you had regular work? A decade?
>>
>> Your attitude, your arrogance and your in ability to accept when you are
>> wrong means you are mainly unemployable.
>>
>> --ROGGIE--
>>
>> "--CELKO--" <jcelko212(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:f5deba13-4fc8-4e3a-a387-d71225391be3(a)k42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >>> Sorry, but I disagree. Adding that really clutters up the posting.
>> >>> There are many questions and answers posted here where no DDL is
>> >>> shown
>> >>> and they are easy enough to understand. <<
>> >
>>
>> > For the last few decades, skeleton DDL has been Netiquette in SQL
>> > newsgroups and forums. The reason is that the DDL is more accurate and
>> > compact than a long vague narrative.
>> >
>>
>> >>> Some questions may require DDL but I tend to believe that they are
>> >>> the
>> >>> exception rather than the rule. <<
>> >
>>
>> > Based on writing eight books, 900+ articles and two decades answering
>> > SQL questions on line, I disagree :) A full schema is not required,
>> > but even the most minimal DDL gives us at least data element names.
>> >
>>
>> >>> A generic solution should be independent of DDL. <<
>> >
>>
>> > No. The DDL gives the data elements and relationships. This is like
>> > saying that you don't need to know what surface you are using (plane,
>> > sphere, saddle) to do geometry. Let me give you a simple example with
>> > some skeleton Nested Sets models:
>> >
>> > CREATE TABLE Tree1
>> > (node_name CHAR (15),
>> > rgt INTEGER,
>> > lft INTEGER);
>> >
>> > CREATE TABLE Tree2
>> > (node_name CHAR (15) PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
>> > rgt INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE,
>> > lft INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE);
>> >
>> > CREATE TABLE Tree3
>> > (node_name CHAR (15) NOT NULL,
>> > rgt INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE,
>> > lft INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE,
>> > PRIMARY KEY (lft, rgt));
>> >
>> > So much for a generic model! Tree1 is pretty much useless, but is
>> > minimal. Tree2 gets the NULLs out of way, gives us some uniqueness.
>> > Tree3 allows the same value to appear in many places; Tree2 does
>> > not.
>> >
>>
>> >>> I usually take it from there and transform it into a working
>> >>> solution. I
>> >>> think many developers will agree with me on that. <<
>> >
>>
>> > That has let me earn a good living for 25 years, correcting code that
>> > was written without a clear spec and no data integrity
>
From: Geoff Schaller on 15 May 2010 21:23
...and this is exactly where we (the current generation) are spoiled.

If you could talk to people like Byron Gariepy and ask them what it was
like back in 1967, it was all very isolationist. You did things yourself
or fumbled through. The clever ones (like Byron) succeeded but many
things took a long time to bear fruit simply because collaboration was
near impossible. And then you published a paper and exposed it to peer
review.

Fast forward to this decade and internet and its forums in particular
(and google, god bless it...) and suddenly you can get 100's people's
input in just a matter of minutes. I can now phone anywhere in the world
for free mostly. In 1967 it was even difficult to phone, let alone cover
the cost of an international call.

But that access also masks genuine ability because it is very easy to
find and parrot information without being an originator or even
acknowledge the source. So it seems in here. Some people seem content to
only quote others without really advancing their own opinions. Some
people seem to quote others as a reason for NOT advancing their own
opinions. They sit down in their arm chair and quote the internet and
then proclaim themselves a guru. ...in their own mind! :-)

Geoff



"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson(a)torver.net> wrote in message
news:uHssHCD9KHA.3276(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

> > Joe gives me the impression that he is one of those interminable book
> > writers. Just writes books because potentially it makes money. At least
> > until the readers wake up to the antiquity of the advice <g>.
>
>
> I speculate that's why he's chosen to troll the Microsoft community, he's
> got no new ideas of his own and is too lazy to research so basically just
> uses the forums as a method of getting new content for his books.
>
> The worse thing about all this is that if he hadn't started trolling the
> public forums people wouldn't realise just how bad he is!
>
> To give him some credit, in the past 3 months he's started to behave himself
> a lot better - he does change sometimes, basically - you can tell when he
> hits the bottle.
>
> I'm doing a MSc in BI at the moment, I've got addicted to the Relational
> Model so am soaking up all that I can around it - just spent two days with
> Chris Date (extremely nice and modest guy) in Edinburgh, not one article
> I've come across in my research mentions celko - he's basically a nobody.
>
> Tony.
>
>
> "Geoff Schaller" <geoffx(a)softxwareobjectives.com.au> wrote in message
> news:RXwHn.24948$pv.20461(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > <rofl>
> >
> > I have this picture in my mind now of someone old enough to wear pyjamas
> > all day.
> >
> > But I think you're right. I don't think he has had 'current' work for a
> > long time now. I have some friends like that. Worked in IT for more than
> > 30 years. The last thing they used for storage was half inch magnetic
> > tape. ...but they still consider themselves IT experts!
> >
> > One of my friends has these certificates all over his wall from IBM - he
> > was instrumental in designing IBM's array processor (Gariepy is the
> > surname, just in case someone might know). The issue is how this might
> > relate to modern IT systems. He (if he was still here with us) would
> > acknowledge the knowledge chasm. But would our Joe?
> >
> > Joe gives me the impression that he is one of those interminable book
> > writers. Just writes books because potentially it makes money. At least
> > until the readers wake up to the antiquity of the advice <g>.
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson(a)torver.net> wrote in message
> > news:4DB52AAD-8EA8-44AA-B821-DD679F1C2540(a)microsoft.com:
> >
>
> >> > That has let me earn a good living for 25 years, correcting code that
> >> > was written without a clear spec and no data integrity
> >>
> >>
>
> >> Interesting give away there --celko--
> >>
> >> How long is it since you had regular work? A decade?
> >>
> >> Your attitude, your arrogance and your in ability to accept when you are
> >> wrong means you are mainly unemployable.
> >>
> >> --ROGGIE--
> >>
> >> "--CELKO--" <jcelko212(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:f5deba13-4fc8-4e3a-a387-d71225391be3(a)k42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
>
> >> >>> Sorry, but I disagree. Adding that really clutters up the posting.
> >> >>> There are many questions and answers posted here where no DDL is
> >> >>> shown
> >> >>> and they are easy enough to understand. <<
> >> >
> >>
>
> >> > For the last few decades, skeleton DDL has been Netiquette in SQL
> >> > newsgroups and forums. The reason is that the DDL is more accurate and
> >> > compact than a long vague narrative.
> >> >
> >>
>
> >> >>> Some questions may require DDL but I tend to believe that they are
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> exception rather than the rule. <<
> >> >
> >>
>
> >> > Based on writing eight books, 900+ articles and two decades answering
> >> > SQL questions on line, I disagree :) A full schema is not required,
> >> > but even the most minimal DDL gives us at least data element names.
> >> >
> >>
>
> >> >>> A generic solution should be independent of DDL. <<
> >> >
> >>
>
> >> > No. The DDL gives the data elements and relationships. This is like
> >> > saying that you don't need to know what surface you are using (plane,
> >> > sphere, saddle) to do geometry. Let me give you a simple example with
> >> > some skeleton Nested Sets models:
> >> >
> >> > CREATE TABLE Tree1
> >> > (node_name CHAR (15),
> >> > rgt INTEGER,
> >> > lft INTEGER);
> >> >
> >> > CREATE TABLE Tree2
> >> > (node_name CHAR (15) PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
> >> > rgt INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE,
> >> > lft INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE);
> >> >
> >> > CREATE TABLE Tree3
> >> > (node_name CHAR (15) NOT NULL,
> >> > rgt INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE,
> >> > lft INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE,
> >> > PRIMARY KEY (lft, rgt));
> >> >
> >> > So much for a generic model! Tree1 is pretty much useless, but is
> >> > minimal. Tree2 gets the NULLs out of way, gives us some uniqueness.
> >> > Tree3 allows the same value to appear in many places; Tree2 does
> >> > not.
> >> >
> >>
>
> >> >>> I usually take it from there and transform it into a working
> >> >>> solution. I
> >> >>> think many developers will agree with me on that. <<
> >> >
> >>
>
> >> > That has let me earn a good living for 25 years, correcting code that
> >> > was written without a clear spec and no data integrity
>
> >

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Possible to select a sample rows based on a column value?
Next: Query for merge column