Re: Argument for 1NF by counter-example

From: Gene Wirchenko <genew_at_mail.ocis.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:48:18 -0700
Message-ID: <10k8o0p3al3godgeurcbjmeo474l8ba3u9_at_4ax.com>


"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote:

>"Tony Douglas" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message news:bcb8c360.0410281320.496ab93a_at_posting.google.com...

[snip]

>> Firstly, the object oriented languages don't seem to agree on what
>> *precisely* an object is; the views of say, Java, C++, Simula and
>> Smalltalk seem to differ, albeit sometimes subtly, on this.
>
>I dunno; I think this whole line of argumentation is a snow job from
>the dbdebunk camp. In some ways it is a *good* thing that the OO
>languages each have their particular semantics; it's a sign that the
>field is vital and active, and trying out new ideas. In contrast,
>relational languages are stultifyingly stuck under the mighty thumb
>of SQL.

     OTOH, it could be that they do not have their act together yet.

     I would like to see more agreement on something so basic to OOP as objects.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.
Received on Sun Oct 31 2004 - 03:48:18 CET

Original text of this message