Re: If you were inventing CoBOL...
From: Howard Brazee (howard_at_brazee.net)
Date: 09/16/04
- Next message: William M. Klein: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Previous message: Chuck Stevens: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- In reply to: Chuck Stevens: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Next in thread: Chuck Stevens: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Reply: Chuck Stevens: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:23:56 GMT
On 16-Sep-2004, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
> > Hierarchal database -> network database (I can't say I am a network
> database
> > person anymore though, but have to regress to the earlier term)
>
> I think these are two entirely different styles of data base design, and
> have seen data bases built under both styles. The only way I can see any
> relationship between them is if one assumes an equivalence like hierarchical
> = network = unnormalized = nonrelational = obsolete.
Part of the confusion. When IDMS came out with a hierarchal database that
allowed multiple owners, they called it a network database. Nobody else paid
any attention, so later on a different type of network database was invented.
- Next message: William M. Klein: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Previous message: Chuck Stevens: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- In reply to: Chuck Stevens: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Next in thread: Chuck Stevens: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Reply: Chuck Stevens: "Re: If you were inventing CoBOL..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|