Re: Relationals vs. Objects Databases I

In article <6aom9d$mnh$1_at_pebble.ml.org>, Joel Garry <joelga_at_pebble.ml.org> writes
>In article <orno4KAot6z0Ew29_at_ahardy.demon.co.uk>,
>Andy Hardy <news1_at_ahardy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <6am1fp$hsq$1_at_pebble.ml.org>, Joel Garry
>><joelga_at_pebble.ml.org> writes
>>>In article <2RiBjIAGjkz0EwWz_at_jbdr.demon.co.uk>,
>>>Jeremy Rickard <Jeremy_at_SPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In article <6al6n4$gc3$1_at_pebble.ml.org>, Joel Garry
>>>><joelga_at_pebble.ml.org> writes
>>>>
>>>>>Uh, if you have to embed it to get the functionality, then the SQL isn't
>>>>>very complete, is it?
>>>>
>>>>Oh, alright then! SQL isn't a complete programming language. It can't
>>>>draw pretty pictures or play pretty sounds (unless perhaps you write
>>>>UDF's for it in another language).
>>>
>>>If all it were lacking were draw and play capabilities, it wouldn't be a
>>>bad language.
>>>
>>
>>Fortunately, you are posting to Oracle groups where we do have a
>>language embedded in the database that can do just about anything you
>>require. Plus some SQL!
>
>Have you followed this thread? Jeremy stated that

Yup... but boredom set in after the third repeat of the arguments! I can't quite remember how the talk of OOP vs SQL got into the Oracle groups, I'd assume that this talk was aimed at the *.theory groups.

>So if you have any disagreements with the statement that standard SQL is
>complete enough in Jeremy's experience, that disagreement would be with
>Jeremy.

Whatever.
>
>You may not have noticed I've been posting in Oracle groups since 1989? :)

No, I hadn't noticed.

Andy

-- 
Andy Hardy. PGP key available on request
===============================================================