[antonvs]

You can't really complain about argument from authority when using another authority to rebut the first one.

Date rather missed the point though - in that article, Meijer clearly identified the duality of the "data modeler" vs. "programmer" perspective - "duality" implying that these were two different perspectives on the same problem. He was saying that the programmer perspective had needs, created by the new industry landscape at the time, that weren't being served by existing relational databases. And he was correct on that point, as the rise of NoSQL solutions and databases such as BigQuery have demonstrated. If Meijer was wrong, then the entire industry, including Google, AWS, etc. have been wrong for a couple of decades now. But really, Date was partly indulging in a shooting of the messenger, and partly a nitpick at what he saw as a mischaracterizations. Date's responses were largely irrelevant to Meijer's main points, and he should have known better.

Anyway, I notice that none of your excuses to avoid learning are actually technical objections to what I was recommending. Why fight so hard to find reasons not to learn?

[ErwinSmout]

No, Date did not "miss the point". He properly identified that all of Meijer's arguments he used to make his point were in fact complete bunk. And he clearly and factually answered why that was so, on a blow-by-blow basis. You call that a "nitpick at what he saw as mischaracterizations", I call that "identifying the blatantly ignorant elephant in the room".

The only perspective should be "how can we get information from users (or any other form of information-capturing device in fact), make records of that information and keep those records as long as the information may be needed [and as long as it pays off to keep them], so that we can later get that information back to same [or other] users". Let's call that perspective "HG" for "Holy Grail".

Codd's intent has always been to achieve HG. Date's intent has always been to achieve HG. Both properly identified the core asset we work with : data. It's always ultimately about the data. Both consequentially properly identified the first step needed to make achieving HG possible : a model of data built on foundations of mathematics. (To quote Codd : "database design is not going to be possible if the only concepts available are bits and bytes".) The model of data they came up with is the relational one. And achieving HG is not going to be done by ditching the model of data. On the contrary. It might be achievable by replacing it with some other model of data, but that is going to require exhaustive demonstration of how and why the replacing model of data is better than the relational one, and delivering such exhaustive demonstration is going to require understanding the relational one in the first place. Of the entire mob that is into what you call the "programmer perspective", there is not a single individual that does.

And Date's point in his reply was : neither does Meijer. Backed by evidence, so it was neither "shooting the messenger" nor "a nitpick" but unfortunately it might require understanding the RM to understand the evidence.

To close, I have some hints for you : (1) there ARE NO "existing relational databases" (2) "BigQuery" is not a "database" but a "DBMS" (there's a Dijkstra quote somewhere about how mastery of mathematics and mastery of language fortuitously tend to always come hand in hand - and there's a corollary to that) and (3) yes, the entire industry has indeed been "wrong for decades" because the RM has never been properly understood. See the McGoveran quote on www.dbdebunk.com. Ironically, this grave mistake might be due exactly to "too much programmer perspective" at the time those pseudo-relational systems were built.