From: CB

To: Editor

 

I have enjoyed the conversations we've had about relational database design. However, there is one question that concerns me. Namely, how can one be a relational purist in today's world, and still put food on the table?

 

What I mean is this: you and I both agree about the superiority of the relational model, and the fallacies of "object-oriented," "multi-value," "multidimensional," "hierarchical," etc., concepts of database design. However ... we live in an IT world that is dominated by vendors and commerce - and I don't see that changing any time soon.  SQL DBMSs, which rely heavily on object-oriented paradigms, such as Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, and IBM's DB2, dominate the IT scene - and probably will for decades to come.  XML is taking over bit by bit as the "de facto" exchange standard.

 

So it seems like, if anyone is to have a chance of making a living in the field of database administration, he must succumb and become an expert at all these (albeit faulty) technologies. Otherwise, one will end up standing on a street corner with a "will work for food" sign.

 

Am I correct in my assessment?  Or is there really a way for a person to be a relational purist and still earn a good living in IT without compromising his/her principles?

 

 

To: CB

From: Fabian Pascal

 

Let me quote from an interview I gave a couple of weeks ago:

 

“Q: Fabian, you’ve successfully positioned yourself as the curmudgeon of the database world.  Your opinions are highly likely to disagree with, and in many cases anger, vendors and the trade press. This is rather an unusual marketing strategy for a consultant, yet you seem to relish the reputation.  Have you always had this contrarian personality or was there a pivotal moment of disillusionment that put you on this path?

 

A: I’ve been called worse, which does not bother me. If telling the truth and relying on science--rather than uninformed personal opinions, poor reasoning, or regurgitating vendor press releases--invites anger from vested interests--which is expected--so be it. This is what marketing should be based on, it should be the rule, not the exception. The issue is not disagreement per se, but the basis for it: its OK to disagree, but you better reason and ground your position in knowledge. It is that which is lacking in the industry: people disagree for no good reason, they just don’t know what they’re talking about and, what is worse, they don’t want to know.

 

The question is how you define success. There is little doubt that I would have been much better off financially had I not bucked the industry. But I must be able to look myself in the mirror, and I wouldn't be able to do that had I been saying, like everybody else, that which is popular, but incorrect. So my measure of success is the degree to which I do not compromise on principles.”

 

So you are correct about reality, and you must make your own personal choices. But at the very least, if you got to do what the industry wants you to do, be aware of it and do not buy into the crap, which is what most practitioners do. Otherwise you will be like the guy in 1984 at the end of the book.

 

Posted 04/04/03

 

 

 

[ABOUT] [QUOTES] [LINKS]