Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)

On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:22:42 +1000, thirdrock <iktaccounts at optusnet dot com dot au> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:27:31 +0200, Hugo Kornelis
><hugo_at_pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:05:20 +1000, thirdrock <iktaccounts at optusnet
>> dot
>> com dot au> wrote:
>>
>> (snip stuff I agree with)
>>
>>>> And this is exactly the reason why I'd never use XDb1 for serious work,
>>>> unless I encounter a problem area where the advantages of allowing
>>>> untyped
>>>> data outweigh the disadvantages.
>>>
>>> It is said that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a
>>> nail.
>>> There are a range of applications that require more flexibility than
>>> strongly typed languages provide. Often the language of choice used is
>>> Perl, and those who use it take the work seriously. But is a language a
>>> database, or a database a language? After all, SQL Server stores the
>>> data
>>> on disk as binary, whether or not it is integer or string, and it is the
>>> database engine that reads/writes from/to the disk that enforces the
>>> datatype. How is this different from using member functions/overloaded
>>> operators in an object database?
>>
>> I'm afraid I don't see what point you're trying to make.
>
>That there are a range of problems where allowing untyped data outweigh
>the disadvantages.

Probably. I didn't encounter these problems yet, but I'm well aware that my personal experience alone proves nothing.

(snip stuff I agree with)

>> Overloading gives the designer the possibility to create lots of extra
>> possibilities for the user. But the user still can't use things that are
>> not pre-defined by the designer. That's the point I was trying to make:
>> XDb1's parser will gladly accept ages of 7, "over the top", "slightly
>> older than I am" or even "I think therefore I am" without bothering to
>> check if it has any overloaded operators that are able to do anything
>> useful with that data.
>>
>Well, is that correct? If I can subclass or extend the functionality of
>the XDb1 functions (which by the way I don't know whether or not it is
>possible), then I can add that type checking myself.
>There are C++ bindings to the XDb1 API ...
>
>Or can I ?

Frankly, I don't know. Neo should know - after all, he is XDb1's lead developer.

Best, Hugo

-- 

(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)