Re: OO and relation "impedance mismatch"

After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, fredrik_bertilsson_at_passagen.se (Fredrik Bertilsson) belched out:
>> OO languages don't support the fundamental relational structure: the
>> relation. It is very evident that a language that does not support
>> relations is not very well suited to work with relational databases.
>
> But non-OO languages support relations, or?? Please give an example.
> Wouldn't it be possible to model a relation as a class? Overloaded
> operators could be used for expressing relational calculus. I think
> that OO languages is the most suited for this job.

I can see a couple of really conspicuous "impedances" to using the typical OO languages in conjunction with relational databases:

1. The "collection" data structures in C++/Java do NOT have the same semantics as the sets of SQL, particularly when concurrent access/updates can take place.
2. The numeric types generally available to C++/Java programmers typically do not include anything suitable for working with monetary transactions.

     The old COBOL hacks can still claim a form of superiority because
     they have BCD math, and therefore predictable monetary
     calculations, whereas the typical clueless fan of the C
     descendants doesn't even grasp that floats are _fundamentally_
     flawed.

-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/internet.html
Rules of  the Evil Overlord  #123. "If I  decide to hold a  contest of
skill  open to  the general  public, contestants  will be  required to
remove their  hooded cloaks and  shave their beards  before entering."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>