Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> ...

>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:45:12 -0800, Costin Cozianu
>>In The Third Manifesto, D&D affirm that 'tis a great blunder to equate
>>"classes" with relations or with relation variables.

> This is rather evident that it is a blunder to confuse types with
> variables or values.

A class may in fact be a value (an instance) of a (meta)class. A class is (amongst other things) (something like) a type. A type is (amongst other things) something like a set of values. A relation is (amongst other things) something like a set of tuples. An object is (amongst other things) a "record of data", somewhat like a tuple
A type can be a relation type, and the value of an attribute of a relation can of a relation type...

So the blunder is perhaps not _that_ evident, but rather understandable (even if it is a blunder - and it is, but...).

<snip>
> IMO an User class would be superfluous in an application, but it would
> not cause big problems necessarily.

Taking a User class as an _example_ (even if a simple one), it is not obvious to me that such a class "would be superfluous". OO is not complety without merits! Received on Mon Nov 15 2004 - 19:23:15 CET