Book Page of the Week #10 (p. 234)
Contrary to what many software developers think, non-developers can very well handle complex formulas and models. It’s just the complexity of software tools that keep them away from developing their own applications.
See https://t.co/9Vz8OWr86D
@mvirkkunen Well, at least these people originally got what they want. Time to market counts. I can understand they do not want to wait for an IT department to help them out. So the question I like to ask: can we make betters tools for them than spreadsheets.
Book Page of the Week #10 (p. 234)
Contrary to what many software developers think, non-developers can very well handle complex formulas and models. It’s just the complexity of software tools that keep them away from developing their own applications.
See https://t.co/9Vz8OWr86D
@aahoogendoorn Given that people can do amazingly complex things indeed (we agree on that) with programming CNC machines, designing PCB's, building financial models, etc., the question (in my book) is why this would not be possible for building screens and reports.
@giulio_vian @Just4TheInfomat It is a lot more than that indeed: inverse relationships, cardinality safety (strict singular/plural use of terms), no distinction between query and regular language features, etc. If you’re interested, find my presentation and details about my book on https://t.co/jab1RcInZi.
Book Page of the Week #9 (p. 75)
Why I hope we can go beyond JSON databases very soon: data is not exclusively hierarchical, and arbitrarily clustering data in documents results in the entanglement of conceptual and technical aspects.
For the full story: https://t.co/9Vz8OWr86D
@cliffordheath You mean like the NIAM that I eargeredly studied cover to cover thirty years ago and was actually one of the main motivations to think about data and database modelling?
@CommonAccord Sure. But that's not the point of the concerning chapter in my book in which I dive into the fundamentals of data modelling and querying, data model versioning, query optimisation, etc.
@ninjasavant This is assuming there will be no future development and we have to stick we what we have. Maybe see my presentation to get the gist of my book that goes into the fundamentals and future. Not 'just a pragmatic approach' given the current available tools.
https://t.co/uLlKdjEHdA
@BrianVerm Thanks for the pragmatic answer. My book however looks further into the fundamentals of data modelling, querying, and how to overcome the issues that held us back from writing less code that we do now (without the pitfalls of old 4GL and current low-code).
@toflidium Sorry to hear that. I'm obviously promoting my book by twittering a passage once in a while, trying to start a discussion (which certainly does and did happen). If it interests you, maybe see my most recent presentation: https://t.co/uLlKdjEHdA
@SFDreverman Especially 'nouns versus verbs' is interesting. It typically makes more sense to use nouns instead of verbs, for example:
customer [ name = 'Company X' ] orders
instead of
MATCH (customer:Customer{name:"Company X"})
-[:HAS_PLACED]->(orders)
RETURN orders
(2/2)
@SFDreverman I do indeed mention them and had myself inspired by them. The concerning chapter is however analysing the fundamentals of relationships: singular versus plural, unidirectional versus bidirectional, schemaless versus schemafull approaches, and nouns versus verbs (1/2)
@behrangsa I agree. I do however propose a lot in my book to go beyond graph databases: schema migration, ownership and because
- customer [name = 'Company X'] orders
better fits a progr. language than
- MATCH (customer:Customer{name:"Company X"}) -[:HAS_PLACED]->(orders) RETURN orders