Re: OO and relation "impedance mismatch"

From: Marshall Spight <mspight_at_dnai.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 05:59:33 GMT
Message-ID: <9F58d.106321$wV.85292@attbi_s54>

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message news:cjqgk3$q4u$1_at_news.netins.net...

> I realize we can't just retire it cold turkey, but I'm hoping it's
> the beginning of the end for SQL-based DBMS's. They are one of the
> components that makes software development so much more complex and less
> flexible today than in the past, without enough benefits.

What I can't help but feel, though, is that you are observing a real problem, but pinning it on the wrong target. Yes, using SQL-based databases isn't "agile" (whatever that means.) I can point to real problems SQL has, such as wacky null semantics, lack of support for used-defined types (objects, if you will,) poor array handling, an antique type system, limited tools for modularity, and just generally being mismatched with today's application languages.

But you've identified "the relational model" as being the cause of the problems, and not any of the things I've listed. Which is funny, because the relational model, as best I can figure out, is why SQL has succeeded so well *despite* all of the above flaws. (Although I know you're big on the 1NF issue as well.)

Marshall Received on Mon Oct 04 2004 - 00:59:33 CDT