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

mountain man wrote:
> "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8his519g1kjtvjiturs93qc31k1uh290kp_at_4ax.com...
> > The inexistence of relationships between the RM and the
applications
> > does not mean that the RM is useless for developing applications.
It
> > only means that it is not being used.
>
> I think that you would agree that it obviously should be used,
> because of the downstream benefits, but it is not. Does this not
> tell you something? It tells me that the model - as it is currently
> promulgated - is not viewed as being applicable to the task by
> the people involved in conducting the task.

That's a big leap. Your argument assumes that people research and examine existing models prior to implementation, and that all models are examined closely and then adhered to. In reality, models are abandoned too quickly, and the model morphs, implicitly, in the minds of implementers (resulting in such things as SQL). There's no reason to assume that people conducting the task have adequately surveyed and evaluated underlying theory. And that's sad, because in our business, we have a better chance than any other at actually executing theory as-is, given that computers can become any machine described adequately.  

• erk