Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface

Re: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:27:46 +0200
Message-ID: <442c5afc$0$11080$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>


topmind wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>

>>topmind wrote:
>>
>>>vc wrote:
>>>
>>>>Neo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Below is an example script for an experimental db (in development) that
>>>>>can store both data and code.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unlike typical databases, data is not stored using a table/record
>>>>>methodology, but via nodes where each node can connect to any other
>>>>>node, in a manner similar to neurons in the human brain.
>>>>
>>>>"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history."
>>>
>>>I used to store snippets of code or subroutine calls in the database
>>>during my ExBase days. Generally they were refered to as "control
>>>tables":
>>>
>>>http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/cntrl1.htm
>>>
>>>However, it is best to have a dynamically-typed RDB for such, and only
>>>SqLite comes close to this feature that I know of.
>>>
>>>But, what is wrong with tables such that the Lisp proponent does not
>>>want to use them?
>>
>>The world is not columns and rows, so you are forcing an unnatural
>>representation onto your data. Bad DBA, bad!

>
> The world is a big tangled graph/network. There is no inherent lasting
> sureshot order to it. However, when we model it, it is tough for humans
> to deal with it as a big tangled string blob. Thus, we impose
> organizational abstractions to model stuff yet be able to grok our
> models as humans. Hierarchies are another example of just such an
> artificial construct. Why do we put all our documents in tree-shaped
> folders and when the world is generally not tree-shaped? Answer:
> because we would go nuts without some kind of ordering.
>
> If you can propose something better than relational tables for
> organizing stuff, I am all ears. But remember:
>
> 1. It must be flexible
> 2. It must be fairly easy for humans to grok (understand, manage, sift)
>
> (Trees tend to fail #1. They cannot easily deal with lots of orthogonal
> categories and relative/custom views.)

Me to's may be frowned upon, I know. Yet, yes! Trees tend to effect: first come first serve. When you have a vision not fitting the hierarchy of the status quo you are out of luck. Received on Thu Mar 30 2006 - 16:27:46 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US