Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!pyramid!infmx!randall
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: ER versus dependency normalization methods.
Message-ID: <1990Nov29.032532.23631@informix.com>
Date: 29 Nov 90 03:25:32 GMT
References: <33445@netnews.upenn.edu> <2095@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au>
Sender: news@informix.com (Usenet News)
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Lines: 24

In article <2095@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au> ghm@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:

>I guess the formal methodologies may have a place in the design of very
>complex systems, although I would always prefer to approach these in a less
>formal way as simpler sub-systems.  However, to paraphrase Sturgeon's Law
>(90% of everything is crud), "90% of computing is common sense dressed up
>in jargon".  People were using normalisation and relational file structures
>before Codd formalised that approach, and people were drawing pictures long
>before they were formally defined as ER diagrams.  The way to approach any
>of the formal methodolgies is to look at what underlies them and take what
>is useful for your particular application.
>

Amen!!!! This guy has obviously designed and built real databases.  I have
a lot of respect for Codd, DeMarco et al., but in a real project, under
a real budget, a real computer, and real deadlines, you can't always follow 
them to the letter. 


-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                          Informix Software, Inc. 
Senior Programmer/Analyst, MIS                    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall