The Foundational Off-By-One Error in Database Theory
Description
The image is a composite of two screenshots. The top part is a tweet from the user ANDREJ (@Andr3jH) which reads, "this is why no one takes computer \"science\" seriously." The word "science" is in quotation marks to express skepticism. Below the tweet is a screenshot of a Wikipedia article titled "Codd's 12 rules". The first sentence of the article's body text humorously states, "Codd's twelve rules[1] are a set of thirteen rules". This contradiction is the core of the joke. It highlights a famous piece of computer science trivia: Edgar F. Codd's foundational rules for relational databases are numbered 0 through 12, resulting in thirteen rules in total. This is a perfect, real-world example of an "off-by-one error," one of the most common types of bugs in programming, making the tweet's jab at the rigor of computer "science" particularly amusing to developers
Comments
24Comment deleted
Codd's 12 rules are the original off-by-one error, the Genesis bug from which all our fence-posting sins descend. We're not bad at counting; we're just honoring a legacy system
Codd’s “twelve” rules? Just the inevitable off-by-one when the theorists index from 0, the DBAs index from 1, and marketing rounds any backlog ≥12 down to a PowerPoint-friendly dozen
After 20 years in the industry, I've learned that Codd's Rule #0 is actually the most important one: 'For a system to qualify as a relational database management system, it must first confuse everyone about whether arrays start at 0 or 1.'
Ah yes, Codd's 12 rules - the database theory equivalent of 'there are 10 types of people in the world.' Nothing says 'rigorous academic discipline' quite like a foundational specification that can't count its own axioms. At least when we ship off-by-one errors to production, we have the decency to call them bugs rather than naming the entire framework after them. Though to be fair, Codd was just preparing us for the reality that every 'simple' database migration will inevitably require N+1 steps
Codd’s “12 rules” are thirteen - the bonus rule is the only one every RDBMS implements: ignore any subset of the other twelve and still market yourself as “relational.”
Codd's rules: Proving RDBMS foundations ship with schema drift right out of the gate
Classic RDBMS marketing: call them “12 rules,” ship 12/12 compliance, quietly ignore Rule 0 - the one that says you must actually be relational
Well, the countdown includes zero in programming smh Comment deleted
Thats not correct Comment deleted
1 story-point task might turn out to take 1 week 😄 Comment deleted
Array overflow Comment deleted
Count will be 12 no mayter if you index from 0 or 1 Comment deleted
Basic math but ok Comment deleted
Well, yea Comment deleted
28 Comment deleted
Okay idk who but either me or you failed school Comment deleted
Oh ye, I forgot to multiply And it's still school holidays rn, so well Comment deleted
💀 Comment deleted
Quick maths Comment deleted
Pentium P5 800 Math Comment deleted
Lore: it was recalled die to floating point inaccuracies Comment deleted
Ikr Comment deleted
I think 28, but math isn't my cup of tea. Comment deleted
0 based, ez Comment deleted