Re: the relational model of data objects *and* program objects

"Alexandr Savinov" <savinov_at_host.com> wrote in message news:425ce2a2$1_at_news.fhg.de...
>> Do you think it is important to address the issue that a model
>> of both the data objects and the program objects is required?
>> [As distinct from a model only of the data side of the picture]
>
> It is one of the most important issues IMHO. But you hardly can find a
> solution, attempts to solve the problem or even recognition that such a
> problem exists. It is clear that there exists two worlds: the world of
> code and the world of data.

Do you look at this code/data
as a type of ying & yang duality?

>You can see this separation anywhere both in theory and practice. For
>example, in any processor and low level programming you can find processor
>and memory, code segment and data segment. In higher level system design
>you can see data-oriented technologies such as numerous data models, object
>persistence models, query languages, mark-up languages as well as
>code-oriented technologies such as programming languages, stored
>procedures, scripting etc. (the list is actually very long).

For all intents and purposes infinite. Programming languages can be invented until the cows come home.

> The problem is that it is hard to prove that this distinction can be put
> at the basis of some next generation approach. But you are right that when
> I am designing a system I do not want to know if some data is stored in
> memory, in local file system, in a remote database or in a spaceship as
> well as I do not want to know how this data is retreived and where the
> intermediate procedures are taken from and where they are executed.
>
>> What obstacles face the conception of such a model?
>> Thanks for any references, articles, etc.
>
> 1. Recognition that such a problem exists, i.e., duality between data and
> code determines/influences all other aspects of the system functionality
> and semantics and it is possible to build a new model based on such a
> code-data duality as one of the main principles.
>
> 2. Existing models and a large number of people satisfied with them. Of
> course, those people do not prevent you to create a new alternaitve
> approach but normally their leaders (orthodox clericals) are quite
> aggresive and see their role in protecting the "true values" and their
> flock of believers from anything new coming from outside. So your attempts
> may be quite dangerous for you.

Thanks for the analysis. Independent objectivity is welcome, as are original thoughts.

>
> alex
>
> http://conceptoriented.com

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au Received on Thu Apr 14 2005 - 10:53:11 CEST