Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:45:56 -0500
Message-ID: <ufadndf-Go9oY0SiRVn-iw_at_golden.net>
"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message
news:e4330f45.0312120826.6c8d359c_at_posting.google.com...
> "Corey Brown" <corey_at_spectrumsoftware.net> wrote in message
news:<AO2Cb.62$C24.51_at_bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
>
> > > I can, but I don't want. To know that is the duty of any professional.
> > > BTW we are talking about models, not about technology.
> >
> > Actually, the original poster may NOT have been talking about models
but
> > about physical implementations. No one is confusing the two except
for
> > you.
>
> This is the original question:
>
> "I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
> Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
> help me with this?"
>
> It is crystal clear. Isn't it?
Yes, it is crystal clear to those who comprehend simple written english. Also direct him to the subject line that contrasts a model with a model--well, with an alleged or hypothetical model in any case.
> > > You don't know the difference between the logical and the physical
> > > levels, you are more ignorant than I thought.
> >
> > Yes I do Alfredo, but to date we have not been talking about the
> > differences
> > between physical and logical. We have been talking about physical
> > differences
> > between ODBMS and RDBMS implementations, at least I have, you seem
> > to be reading from a different hymnal.
>
> Each OODBMS and each SQL DBMS may have a different implementation
> technology, so what you say does not make sense.
I also observe that he clearly demonstrates his ignorance and confusion regarding the difference between the logical and the physical when he includes strictly physical issues in discussions of strictly logical topics.
> > > Because you ignore the fundamentals of the data management field.
> >
> > Sorry Alfredo, I don't ignore the fundamentals anymore than you do.
>
> This is in contradiction with your posts.
His profound ignorance of fundamentals prevents him from even knowing what the fundamentals are. I am sure he considers whatever his ignorant prejudices tell him are fundamental. I find it sad (perhaps pathetic is more appropriate) that so many vociferous ignorami pollute and debase our profession.
> > See my statement above, but yes I do agree with you on this point.
> > A lot of this boils down to religious beliefs and unfortunately you
> > cannot
> > dispose religion with technological fact.
>
> I hope you don't think that math and science are a religions.
To the devoted zealot, there is only religion.
> > > The implementation flaws are the only reason that could make more
> > > appropiate a tool based on an inferior approach.
> >
> > Excellent, now were grounding out. There are implementation flaws
> > in ALL technologies. Those that can see and understand those flaws
> > are not doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again.
>
> If the flaws are solved, then the inferior approach hasn't anything to
> do. Inferior approaches are dead ends.
Alfredo, you will never reach a person who cannot distinguish between a property of an implementation and a property of a technology even when stated explicitly. He is not only ignorant: his thinking is generally confused and his values backward.
> > Did we lose anything by moving to an ODBMS, you bet we did. We lost
> > out ability to run ad-hoc queries against the data.
>
> And you would have a lot to win with a good RDBMS which allows wide
> physical independence. You would have the same performance or better,
> ad-hoc queries and the rest of the advantages of The Relational Model.
> That is what I am trying to say all the time.
I am surprised you let the suggestion he lost only one thing stand unchallenged. Given there is no difference between an ad hoc query and a well-formed formula, he lost the ability to express integrity. Given there is no difference between an ad hoc query and a view or snapshot derivation, he lost the ability to derive additional views of the data with the concomitant loss of logical independence. He lost simplicity. He lost elegance. He lost portability. He lost the ability to benefit from real advances to the state of the art of data management.
> > > And your belief is based on ignorance and inaccurate information.
> >
> > Let's lose the whole "ignorance" thing ok?
>
> Why?
>
> Which euphemism do you like?
The power to lose the whole ignorance thing remains solely in his hands. To lose it, he need only learn the fundamentals of his profession. He could start by opening a good book.
> > We are all ignorant about a
> > great many things
>
> Indeed, so there isn't anything insultant in the term.
>
> >, but you don't hear me calling you ignorant because
> > you
> > can't build jet engines do you?
>
> I am utter ignorant about aeronautics and many other things, If you
> say I am ignorant about aeronautics or bulgarian literature for
> instance, I would agree without any problem.
The big differenc between you and Corey is you do not pretend to know aeronautics or bulgarian literature and you do not make public pronouncements or suggestions on either topic. Received on Fri Dec 12 2003 - 18:45:56 CET