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

In message <426507d3$1_at_news.fhg.de>, Alexandr Savinov <savinov_at_host.com> writes
>mountain man schrieb:
>> "Bernard Peek" <bap_at_shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>
>>>It really is a good idea to have some things centralised.
>> I agree. The efficiency of management, coordination and
>> change-management of a thing increases with centralisation.
>> Do counter-examples exist at all?
>
>It absolutely clear that a centralized system is easier to create and
>operate so it is the best choice.

I dispute your assertion that centralised systems are necessarily easier to create and/or operate.

>However, such a case is only a theory while in practice we need to deel
>with decentralized system.

Not if a centralised system is easier to create and operate. Why do we need to build systems that are more difficult to create and operate? What objections do you have to efficient systems?

> For example, it would be much more better to have one global
>post-office for the whole world so that any letter goes to this
>post-office and then routed to the target address. But it will not work.

There are systems that work better with central control and systems that work better with decentralised control. You are making broad assertions and we can see exceptions to them. You need to focus your argument so that you can define precisely what type of system will definitely benefit from decentralisation. Until then I don't think you have an argument that is worth listening to. I already know that some systems benefit from decentralisation. I need you to tell me how to unambiguously identify exactly which ones.

-- 
Bernard Peek
London, UK. DBA, Manager, Trainer & Author.