Re: Object support in the relational model??

> How about providing a practical and production-ready replacement
> for SQL?
> This is what I do!
> You don't!

Your product omits basic functionality that SQL provides. As such, it does not qualify as a practical replacement.

> I am trying to produce the best product *for limited usecases* with
> the best knowledge that I have. Why do you think that you are in a
> position to look down on me?
> ...and you too Bob Badour?

Because I have integrity and honesty in my dealings with the public. You can no longer claim ignorance in your defence.

> > BTW, what do you do with the end-user?
>
> It's up to application programmers to provide end-user products, right?

It's up to the DBMS to provide an interface to its end-users -- not all of whom are programmers.

> I do think about the end-user by providing the application programmer
> with more ease to store his objects so he has more time to build a nice
> user interface.

You would do better by thinking about how to simplify the logical interface so that you can automate building nice user interfaces. The relational model does that.

> > By thinking about programming
> > only you limit yourself to one application per database
>
> Noone prevents you from mapping objects to objects, to allow reuse in
> multiple applications. Noone prevents you from creating "object views".

Except a lack of generic operations suitable to the task. (And yes, I have read the work on "object views" which are pitiful and retarded compared to relational views.) Received on Wed Jun 12 2002 - 03:04:25 CEST