Re: OO and relation "impedance mismatch"
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:57:47 -0500
Message-ID: <cjsdgk$t27$1_at_news.netins.net>
"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:S9ydnTEqG6drqPzcRVn-rA_at_comcast.com...
>
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message
> news:cjqgk3$q4u$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > Whereas I would like to retire the relational model as it is implemented
> > today. 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.
>
> I can only imagine what the people who learn SQL in your classroom learn.
> You said a few months ago that this was a scary thought. It is.
I'm teaching Java among other things right now, but not SQL, so you can rest
more comfortably. However, if I were to teach SQL, the students would learn
it. If I didn't know SQL (at a level somewhat less than Celko, I'm sure,
but still not-too-shabby, I suspect), I wouldn't be so displeased with it.
Similarly, if I had not investigated the relational model, I would not have
seen the flaws in it.
smiles. --dawn
Received on Mon Oct 04 2004 - 22:57:47 CEST