Re: (OT)Dynamic inheritance (was: Object support in the relational model??)

Paul Vernon <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message news:<aeddc4$10kc$1_at_sp15at20.hursley.ibm.com>...
> >> OO Prescription 3: Computational Completeness
>
> > Unfortunately I don't have TTM in hand now, and AFAIR this was the
> > one part in it that didn't convince me. I can't see why one couldn't
> > implement D in Scheme or some other Lisp dialect, for example -- or
> > even Java, C# or some other C derivative -- and have users defining
> > functions in it. I haven't checked, but I think this is the approach
> > taken by Alphora in Dataphor.
>
> The gist was that they wouldn't prohibit using D as a sublanguage, but D
> should not be hobbled in such a way as to *require* another language.
> All that 'impendence mismatch' I suppose.

But then if you use Scheme or ML or Smalltalk or Java C# or whatever to create D in, the impedance thing goes away too. That's the FirstSQL (Java) and Alphora Dataphor (C#) model.

> Anyway, Java, C etc don't
> support Relations, so why on earth would you want to use them for
> anything?

To program D in, what else?

To be more precise, use the libraries, programming paradigm, etc. Why reinvent the wheel creating a computationally complete language inside D if D can be created inside a computationally complete language? Received on Sun Jun 23 2002 - 02:34:00 CEST