• (cs) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Someone You Know:
    Remy Porter's Comments:
    His first warning should have been that she was wearing two mismatched plaids, a fashion don't even naked robots recognize.

    Did Mark write that sentence for you, Remy?

    Now we're going to start picking on HTML comments?

    "Don't" is a noun in that sentence. Now try reading it again.

    It would have been good style to disambiguate it by putting "that" in between "don't" and "even".
  • (cs) in reply to Grammer Nazi
    Grammer Nazi:
    dkf:
    frits:
    What wrong with XML files being stored in a database? Who hasn't done something like this?
    If you're using Extensible XML, nothing. Mind you, you've got to store the configuration for how to connect to the database somewhere. Perhaps in an XML file…
    The TRWTF is that "X" is for Extensible. Will you all stop using redundant speech.
    whoosh!
  • (cs) in reply to DaveK
    DaveK:
    frits:
    Someone You Know:
    Remy Porter's Comments:
    His first warning should have been that she was wearing two mismatched plaids, a fashion don't even naked robots recognize.

    Did Mark write that sentence for you, Remy?

    Now we're going to start picking on HTML comments?

    "Don't" is a noun in that sentence. Now try reading it again.

    It would have been good style to disambiguate it by putting "that" in between "don't" and "even".

    Yeah, but then people would complain about the needless use of "that", which is a writing don't. Let's not forget that the original quote was an HTML comment not even visible to the casual viewer.

  • Grammer Nazi (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    DaveK:
    frits:
    Someone You Know:
    Remy Porter's Comments:
    His first warning should have been that she was wearing two mismatched plaids, a fashion don't even naked robots recognize.

    Did Mark write that sentence for you, Remy?

    Now we're going to start picking on HTML comments?

    "Don't" is a noun in that sentence. Now try reading it again.

    It would have been good style to disambiguate it by putting "that" in between "don't" and "even".

    Yeah, but then people would complain about the needless use of "that", which is a writing don't. Let's not forget that the original quote was an HTML comment not even visible to the casual viewer.

    Incorrect. Writing is about communication, so if it aids communication you should include it. The stuff we English professors gripe about is when you use a superfluous "that" which does not assist the understanding of the message and that is only put in to fulfill a word or page count for an assignment.
  • Grammer Nazi (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog:
    Grammer Nazi:
    dkf:
    frits:
    What wrong with XML files being stored in a database? Who hasn't done something like this?
    If you're using Extensible XML, nothing. Mind you, you've got to store the configuration for how to connect to the database somewhere. Perhaps in an XML file…
    The TRWTF is that "X" is for Extensible. Will you all stop using redundant speech.
    whoosh!
    Damn, did you notice that if you highlight the data in black that you can read the data? I hope that's not Jennifer Garner's real SSN.
  • Web Dude (unregistered)

    In addition to the two plaids, I wonder if Lisa also commutes to work using an old Dodge K-car?

    I love obscure MST3K references...although it's been a while since I've seen the Time Chasers episode!

  • sqlblindman (unregistered) in reply to TheCPUWizard
    1. So?
    2. Clueless, and probably unteachable.
  • uuang (unregistered) in reply to Web Dude
    Web Dude:
    In addition to the two plaids, I wonder if Lisa also commutes to work using an old Dodge K-car?

    I love obscure MST3K references...although it's been a while since I've seen the Time Chasers episode!

    Bah, I thought I would be the only one!

  • will (unregistered)

    Remedy is one product that shipps like this. Most tables are all generic with named and there is another table that indicates the table name and column and from that you can find what is stored.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    No idea who that is. Honestly, one of these days, I'm going to sit down and build a death-metal version of Cornify- the same idea, but y'know, all the unicorns are death metal themed, and the rainbows will only be colored red and black and possibly bleed. And they'd still sparkle.

    It'll be awesome.

    I support your death 'corns and agree it would be awesome beyond any measurable standard.

  • (cs) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Someone You Know:
    Remy Porter's Comments:
    His first warning should have been that she was wearing two mismatched plaids, a fashion don't even naked robots recognize.

    Did Mark write that sentence for you, Remy?

    Now we're going to start picking on HTML comments?

    We're going to pick on everything. This is the Internet, remember?

    frits:
    "Don't" is a noun in that sentence. Now try reading it again.

    Are you just trolling here, or is there some legitimate sense in which "don't" can be used as a noun that I'm unaware of?

  • (cs) in reply to Grammer Nazi
    Grammer Nazi:
    frits:
    DaveK:
    frits:
    Someone You Know:
    Remy Porter's Comments:
    His first warning should have been that she was wearing two mismatched plaids, a fashion don't even naked robots recognize.

    Did Mark write that sentence for you, Remy?

    Now we're going to start picking on HTML comments?

    "Don't" is a noun in that sentence. Now try reading it again.

    It would have been good style to disambiguate it by putting "that" in between "don't" and "even".

    Yeah, but then people would complain about the needless use of "that", which is a writing don't. Let's not forget that the original quote was an HTML comment not even visible to the casual viewer.

    Incorrect. Writing is about communication, so if it aids communication you should include it. The stuff we English professors gripe about is when you use a superfluous "that" which does not assist the understanding of the message and that is only put in to fulfill a word or page count for an assignment.

    Do you really think that people wouldn't complain about some sort of perceived grammer faux pas? because I was only offering an assertion, not an endorsement.

  • Dos and Don'ts (unregistered) in reply to Someone You Know
    Someone You Know:
    frits:
    Someone You Know:
    Remy Porter's Comments:
    His first warning should have been that she was wearing two mismatched plaids, a fashion don't even naked robots recognize.

    Did Mark write that sentence for you, Remy?

    Now we're going to start picking on HTML comments?

    We're going to pick on everything. This is the Internet, remember?

    frits:
    "Don't" is a noun in that sentence. Now try reading it again.

    Are you just trolling here, or is there some legitimate sense in which "don't" can be used as a noun that I'm unaware of?

    Ever heard the phrase "dos and don'ts"? Do use meaningful variable names, don't use single letter variable names - these are some of the "dos and don'ts" of software devlopment. Now apply your new-found knowledge to the phrase above and it should all suddenly make sense. I hope.

  • (cs) in reply to Someone You Know
    Someone You Know:
    frits:
    Someone You Know:
    Remy Porter's Comments:
    His first warning should have been that she was wearing two mismatched plaids, a fashion don't even naked robots recognize.

    Did Mark write that sentence for you, Remy?

    Now we're going to start picking on HTML comments?

    We're going to pick on everything. This is the Internet, remember?

    frits:
    "Don't" is a noun in that sentence. Now try reading it again.

    Are you just trolling here, or is there some legitimate sense in which "don't" can be used as a noun that I'm unaware of?

    Are you abtusing me? "Don't" can be a synonym for "no-no". Especially when referring to fashion for some reason.

  • itsmo (unregistered) in reply to Alexandre Brault
    Alexandre Brault:
    TheCPUWizard:
    1) Every major relational database IS a "database in a database", all of the tales, columns, etc are infact stored in tables...
    That would make this business' idea a database in a database in a database. Brillant!
    FTFY
  • wtf (unregistered) in reply to Someone You Know
    Someone You Know:
    Are you just trolling here, or is there some legitimate sense in which "don't" can be used as a noun that I'm unaware of?

    You mean, as in "Jeremy was wearing a whole collection of fashion don'ts this morning"? Seriously, who hasn't said something like this?

  • (cs)

    I bet this guy has an MBA. People with MBAs think they know everyone else's business better than they do. Why wouldn't an MBA be able to revolutionize database design?

  • Christine O'Donnell (unregistered)

    back to the topic, yes I hold my hand up and admit I've been involved in a project which was indeed a database within a database. it could have been quite good until my erstwhile boss insisted the schema needed double the number of tables to accomplish what was essentially the same thing.

  • Mr Picky (unregistered)

    So what are the benefits of 'paritioning' ?

  • Tuna (unregistered) in reply to Stark

    But it's been done so many times in the real world. Last year I saw a guy who didn't like how "the django ORM was inflexible", and proceeded to reimplement a crappy copy of it, on top of the django ORM.

  • grammar nazi nazi (unregistered) in reply to Nazi nazi
    Nazi nazi:
    The word you are looking for is "grammar," "grammar nazi."

    FTFY

  • everyone (unregistered) in reply to Grammer Nazi
    Grammer Nazi:
    Incorrect. Writing is about communication, so if it aids communication you should include it.
    This. Even after being told that "don't" was a noun, I still had absolutely no idea how to parse the sentence. After being told that a "that" should be stuck there, suddenly it made sense. (Incidentally, this is now one of my new favorite garden path sentences.)

    Of course, people also complain about not splitting infinitives, ending sentences with prepositions, beginning them with conjunctions, all sorts of stupid things. Best advice is just to ignore those people, and write however will make you understood best.

  • Zep-- (unregistered) in reply to grammar nazi nazi

    I have Databased your Database, Pray I do not Database it further.

    captcha: facilisi - a marriage of fact and fallacy

  • Forumtroll (unregistered) in reply to TheCPUWizard
    TheCPUWizard:
    Two comments... 2) There are many circumstances (especially with dynamic data) where normalized tables are NOT the "right way to goe". In a fair number of cases and EAV [Entity, Attribute, Value] triad (single table with three columns) along with supporting definition columns can lead to results that are easier to develop/maintain and also exceed the performance of traditions approaches...

    HEY EVERYBODY, WE HAVE AN ORACLE ENTUSIAST HERE!

    Seriously, go learn how to develop with REAL databases before posting such jackassed bullshit.

  • RandomUser423703 (unregistered) in reply to Salami
    Salami:
    I bet this guy has an MBA. People with MBAs think they know everyone else's business better than they do. Why wouldn't an MBA be able to revolutionize database design?
    I think you mean "revolutionize database non-design".
    Lisa:
    Then we wouldn't have to define structures or deal with any of that mess.
  • takes one too no won (unregistered) in reply to everyone
    everyone:
    Even after being told that "don't" was a noun, I still had absolutely no idea how to parse the sentence.

    Because your a moran.

  • andi (unregistered)

    A database within a database within a database... of what recent movie does that remind me...?

  • TheSHEEEP (unregistered)

    Hmm...

    The Expendables?

  • Jim Moran (unregistered) in reply to takes one too no won
    takes one too no won:
    everyone:
    Even after being told that "don't" was a noun, I still had absolutely no idea how to parse the sentence.

    Because your a moran.

    I literally resemble that remark.

  • uuang (unregistered) in reply to TheSHEEEP
    TheSHEEEP:
    Hmm...

    The Expendables?

    Jackass?

  • frits (unregistered) in reply to uuang
    uuang:
    TheSHEEEP:
    Hmm...

    The Expendables?

    Jackass?
    I agree.

  • ctw (unregistered) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    You have a higher opinion of the general public's reading comprehension and vocabulary than I do.

    Sometimes, you've just gotta be obvious.

    Remy, when was the last time WTF readers bitched out you or anyone else on staff for assuming we were smarter than we were?

    I've seen this community bitch about being treated like idiots, or whine about spelling, but never about "how dare he assume we knew what that meant."

  • chris (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    The Grenger:
    Stark:
    Didn't we do the database in a database thing already?

    Like XML files being stored in a database?

    What wrong with XML files being stored in a database? Who hasn't done something like this?

    Never again.

  • (cs) in reply to andi
    andi:
    A database within a database within a database... of what recent movie does that remind me...?

    Ooo... Good point. And for each layer deeper that you go, things move slower!

  • Ben (unregistered) in reply to TheCPUWizard
    TheCPUWizard:
    Two comments...
    1. Every major relational database IS a "database in a database", all of the tales, columns, etc are infact stored in tables...

    The schema is stored in tables. The tables themselves, however, are regular tables. That's not how an EAV system works.

    2) There are many circumstances (especially with dynamic data) where normalized tables are NOT the "right way to goe".

    Bullshit.

    In a fair number of cases and EAV [Entity, Attribute, Value] triad (single table with three columns) along with supporting definition columns can lead to results that are easier to develop/maintain and also exceed the performance of traditions approaches...

    Everyone does EAV once. Then, if the project takes off, they run into the limits of EAV. For instance, you only have one type, you have no integrity constraints, you can't have extra indexes, etc.

    After your SQL gets hopelessly convoluted, you wind up learning how to code dynamic DDL. Hopefully you started with a DBMS that can do DDL in a transaction.

    A non-database guy will always think this is a good idea, because he will look at a database schema and not look at the app code. He'll propose the EAV schema, which will look far simpler than a real schema, ignore the lack of integrity constraints and all the problems that will cause, and ignore the far greater complexity of reimplementing the DBMS.

  • Monte (unregistered) in reply to Whatever
    Whatever:
    Grammer Nazi:
    The Article:
    Lisa's smile sublimated into vapor.
    FTFY. The definition of "sublimated" is to become vapor. The use of "into vapor" is redundant.

    The use of "The use of "into vapor" is redundant." is redundant.

    The people who did the sacking of those who sacked the people redundantly using "The use of 'into vapor' is redundant" have been sacked.
  • Fred (unregistered) in reply to Cbuttius
    Cbuttius:
    I would really like to work for a good start-up though. It's been my ambition. But a start-up before they start developing anything.
    That's called starting your own company. With so many unemployed IT people out there, I'm surprised it isn't happening more often. What's the matter? No ideas? Everything's been invented already?
  • SomeCoder (unregistered) in reply to uuang
    uuang:
    Web Dude:
    In addition to the two plaids, I wonder if Lisa also commutes to work using an old Dodge K-car?

    I love obscure MST3K references...although it's been a while since I've seen the Time Chasers episode!

    Bah, I thought I would be the only one!

    I wonder if JK Robertson eventually shot Pink Boy (AKA Matthew) during a wacky adventure back in time during the American Revolution...

    MST3K anonymization FTW!

  • anon (unregistered) in reply to Grammer Nazi
    Grammer Nazi:
    Remy Porter:
    You have a higher opinion of the general public's reading comprehension and vocabulary than I do.

    Sometimes, you've just gotta be obvious.

    Well, if you think that's the case, don't use the word "sublimated." While we're at it, you should have put quotes around "don't" in your comments.

    Don't feed the trole...

    Move along people, nothing to see here.

  • Ben (unregistered) in reply to Grammer Nazi
    Grammer Nazi:
    frits:
    DaveK:
    frits:
    Someone You Know:
    Remy Porter's Comments:
    His first warning should have been that she was wearing two mismatched plaids, a fashion don't even naked robots recognize.

    Did Mark write that sentence for you, Remy?

    Now we're going to start picking on HTML comments?

    "Don't" is a noun in that sentence. Now try reading it again.

    It would have been good style to disambiguate it by putting "that" in between "don't" and "even".

    Yeah, but then people would complain about the needless use of "that", which is a writing don't. Let's not forget that the original quote was an HTML comment not even visible to the casual viewer.

    Incorrect. Writing is about communication, so if it aids communication you should include it. The stuff we English professors gripe about is when you use a superfluous "that" which does not assist the understanding of the message and that is only put in to fulfill a word or page count for an assignment.

    How can it be correct? People have been prescriptivist in the way they teach writing for all of recorded history, so clearly, by descriptivist dogma, prescriptivism is the correct way to critique writing.

  • Dan (unregistered)

    If Jose had invented a database that could travel through time (and had a pilots license... but couldn't drive a car), THEN he'd have been hired.

  • Kef Schecter (unregistered) in reply to frits

    [quote user="frits"]Yeah, but then people would complain about the needless use of "that", which is a writing don't.[/quote] If people would get confused by its absence -- which has already happened! -- it isn't needless.

    Quotation marks around "don't" would have worked as well, by the way.

    [quote user="frits"Let's not forget that the original quote was an HTML comment not even visible to the casual viewer.[/quote] But what's the fun in that?!?

  • Nome de Plume (unregistered) in reply to Stark
    Stark:
    Didn't we do the database in a database thing already?

    Yes, many SQL databases store schemas as objects this way. Oracle calls it the Data Dictionary, and PostgreSQL uses the term System Catalog.

    For example, CREATE PROCEDURE... stores the procedure's call linkage in a system table.

    I don't know why people think this is a new, or even complex idea.

  • The Interviwer (unregistered)

    "he knew what his résumé said."

    Instant hire!

  • (cs)

    They need to stop hiring all these English majors as developers.

  • Darth DBA (unregistered)

    I have revolutionized your database. Pray I don't revolutionize it any further...

  • Krenn (unregistered) in reply to Someone You Know
    Someone You Know:
    Are you just trolling here, or is there some legitimate sense in which "don't" can be used as a noun that I'm unaware of?

    Yes. A "fashion don't" is an example of terrible fashion.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to dkf
    dkf:
    frits:
    What wrong with XML files being stored in a database? Who hasn't done something like this?
    If you're using Extensible XML, nothing. Mind you, you've got to store the configuration for how to connect to the database somewhere. Perhaps in an XML file…

    Do we store the connection information for the database in the database! Brillant!

    Like one of my college IT teachers said: "Don't bury the treasure map with the treasure."

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to TheCPUWizard
    TheCPUWizard:
    1) Every major relational database IS a "database in a database", all of the tales, columns, etc are infact stored in tables...

    Umm, I think that's the point. Given that the database engine already does this, why do you want to build another layer on top that does it again?

    Hey, that gives me an idea for a brilliant coding technique:

    public int plus(int a, int b)
{
  return a+b;
}
public String intToString(int a)
{
  return Integer.toString(a);
}

    Well, I'm sure you can see how to extend this idea. We could build a complete implementation of all the built-in Java functions using Java! Think of the flexibility this would add!

  • jkupski (unregistered) in reply to Grammer Nazi
    Grammer Nazi:
    The TRWTF is that "X" is for Extensible. Will you all stop using redundant speech.
    I'm trying to decide if the above is a joke, or just a sad commentary on grammar nazis in general.

    "The The Real What The ****," indeed.

Leave a comment on “Technically an Interview”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article