RobertYoung (7/15/2013)
patrickmcginnis59 10839 (7/15/2013)
Vila Restal (7/12/2013)
That's a sweeping generalisation of 'coders' (or perhaps more respectfully called software engineers or developers). Do you really have so little respect for them all, even those you've never met, or just the ones you've ever worked with?The dba/developer divide is probably something we'll have to live with. I don't really subscribe to it except to acknowledge the existance of the divide for the purposes of navigating the various logistics of getting things done, and maybe occasionally expend some effort occasionally to ruminate on its cause.
But lets not pretend that the disdain for developers expressed by one poster is a fluke, a significant percentage of DBA's do seem to have this adversarial point of view.
The first shot in the "adversarial point of view" was fired by coders. If you were around, or have read the history, you well know that Codd was vilified by the coding camp. The RM/sql database blew a large hole in IMS, which was Codd's explicit agenda. For those who don't know, IMS was/is IBM's hierarchical datastore, aimed mostly at COBOL copybooks, and requires a lot of coding just to keep breathing. IBM didn't take kindly to Codd; which is how Ellison beat them to a working product.
That doesn't really follow what I've read, the original "shot" you describe seems more like a decision by IBM to protect their existing hierarchical oriented product, and the subsequent efforts to isolate developers from Codd's ideas doesn't really seem to have been a decision made by developers themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_F._Codd
Coders spew out more LoC to get more moolah.
This seems to be opposed to much discussion of desireable development practices I've run across, so I'm thinking a strawman might be under construction here 🙂 This in no way precludes the instances of bad development, but I'm thinking that you won't find many notable leading developers ascribing to "more LoC means better systems."