Re: C# 3.0 with pseudorelational extensions
From: BobTheDataBaseBoy <"xxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:01:00 -0400
Message-ID: <h6mdnWY6-sZtHrHeRVn-ow_at_rcn.net>
>
>
> I dunno. Prolog is still alive and kicking 30 years after its
> debut, and that's more than most programming languages can say.
> But Prolog's not really what I have in mind. It's decidedly
> single-paradigm, for one thing.
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, that's a bit stronger than I'm comfortable with. It's generally
> the work of people who understand OO just fine, but don't understand
> relational all that well.
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:01:00 -0400
Message-ID: <h6mdnWY6-sZtHrHeRVn-ow_at_rcn.net>
Marshall Spight wrote:
> BobTheDataBaseBoy wrote:
>
>>>I have no idea whether DLinq is well-executed or not. But I'm >>>convinced that unifying the capabilities of the dbms and the >>>general purpose programming language will lead to some great >>>things. >>> >> >>prolog appeared within months of RM, and was based on just that premise. >> it hasn't taken the world by storm in the decades since.
>
>
> I dunno. Prolog is still alive and kicking 30 years after its
> debut, and that's more than most programming languages can say.
> But Prolog's not really what I have in mind. It's decidedly
> single-paradigm, for one thing.
>
>
>
>>>I also agree that O/R mapping, as it is commonly practiced, is >>>mostly about throwing out relational functionality and putting >>>an OO face on what's left behind. And I'm convinced that this >>>is *not* a useful approach. >> >>it's an idea made be people who don't know how computers actually work.
>
>
> Well, that's a bit stronger than I'm comfortable with. It's generally
> the work of people who understand OO just fine, but don't understand
> relational all that well.
the notion of the mismatch derives from the notion that an object must:
i) be realized in the computer's memory whole
and therefore
ii) be persisted whole
i) isn't true, thus ii) isn't true.
Bob
>
>
>
> Marshall
>
Received on Sat Sep 17 2005 - 23:01:00 CEST