"referential integrity" is not necessary to make something relational.
Is just that for some reasons, everyone on the RDBMS/relational space instantly add EVERYTHING that make a rdbms.
Is like adding transactions to OO... and if a OO implementation don't have it claim is not OO.
P.D: I'm building a relational language... And also start with FoxPro. What it not have at the time was well rounded SQL support but is until this day MUCH better rdbms tool than any other on the market, by a mile (considering the difference on time and scope, btw)
Never said that. And I'm having difficulty following what point you're trying to make because there's little coherence or grammar to your writing.
Referential integrity is a real DBMS term, so I don't know why you're poo-pooing it. It means never having dangling foreign key references.
The drop or preserve semantics of RI are dependent on R-E DBMS design (foreign keys). RI is fundamental to data hygiene, unless you'd prefer customers have a huge mess and then blame you for it.
FoxPro is/was based on dBASE II/III. R:BASE predates it by 3 years.
Is just that for some reasons, everyone on the RDBMS/relational space instantly add EVERYTHING that make a rdbms.
Is like adding transactions to OO... and if a OO implementation don't have it claim is not OO.
P.D: I'm building a relational language... And also start with FoxPro. What it not have at the time was well rounded SQL support but is until this day MUCH better rdbms tool than any other on the market, by a mile (considering the difference on time and scope, btw)