Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!uunet!odi!dlw From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Comment on the "Third-Generation Database System Manifesto" Message-ID: <1990Sep28.173803.15043@odi.com> Date: 28 Sep 90 17:38:03 GMT References: <21178@hercules.csl.sri.com> <30205@netnews.upenn.edu> Reply-To: dlw@odi.com Distribution: comp Organization: Object Design, Inc. Lines: 28 In-Reply-To: aaron@grad2.cis.upenn.edu's message of 27 Sep 90 13:43:32 GMT In article <30205@netnews.upenn.edu> aaron@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Aaron Watters) writes: I wouldn't characterize it as a schism, I'd call it a healthy debate. It's only `too bad' for vendors who want claim their products are `next generation' without any objections. Why is it that criticism and disagreement is so often characterized as `bad' in the CS community? The most minor criticism seems to reduce some people to fuming, clawing, scorpions. EG, see the letters to the CACM in response to `Program Verification: the Very Idea.' -aaron From the point of view of intellectual progress, free debate, and the open marketplace of ideas, a healthy debate is not only desirable but essential. From this point of view, if there were grounds for complaint, they'd be about the quality and persuasiveness of the arguments, and so on. In the real world, though, papers, especially those called "manifestos" and "countermanifestos", and especially those co-authored by academics of many different affiliations, end up being more than just free debate, whether intentionally or not. The degree to which such papers are believed and accepted can affect who gets research funds, which theses are considered good enough to deserve a degree, who gets tenure, and so on. I think it's possible that some of the fuming may result from this aspect of the papers. If this is what Masterson thinks is too bad, I agree, although I don't see what to do about it.