Re: Relationals vs. Objects Databases I

DTF User wrote in message <34C3AB20.1FB6BA21_at_young.epc.lmms.lmco.com>...
>Richard Ronteltap wrote:
>> - Bad complex data handling. Everything must be broken down into
>> rectangular tables.
>
>With the object model you also have a list of attributes which is what? One
>dimentional?Relational data model does require more elaboration, but it
 does
>your mind good.

No. Encapsulation does your mind good, so you can concentrate on other things
once 'sub'problems have been solved.

>> The relations between these smashed bits are not part of the model.
>
>If you'll define these relations you will have them. And they will be
>handled better then by ODBMS.

Where do you 'define' then in the relational model or programming language. Sure, you can write some algebraic or SQL statements, but they are detached from the data, not part of the relational model.

>> SQL and relational algebra are computationally incomplete and
>> there is no fitting alternative that is.
>
>The same for the most OO languages and OO approach in general.

No. All OO programming languages are computationally complete (only requires arrays, if and goto (loops)). OO centainly 'fits' the way people think about problems.

>
>> - No extensibility. You can't add new basic data types.
>
>Yes, you can.

You can in Oracle8, but not if you read Codd's(?) definitions of relational.

Richard Received on Tue Jan 20 1998 - 00:00:00 CST