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

From: x <>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:48:39 +0300
Message-ID: <e2skqn$vph$>

"Marshall Spight" <> wrote in message
> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> >
> > There wasn't much work on components either for languages like Prolog,
> > for SQL. So it actually is difficult to say if with more advanced
> > based on same paradigms one could have composable abstractions.
> Yes, this has been on my mind lately as well. The abstraction
> facilities
> in SQL are poor to nonexistent, and I really wonder what a relational
> language with a modern set of abstraction facilities would look like.
> Perhaps even hygenic macros could be considered.<gasp>

I'll predict it will look much like ... relational language :-) with some relational constants predefined.

> > One concern
> > is that abstractions seem tend to be hierarchical (like values ->
types ->
> > classes -> sets of types in OOPL.) But that is an observation from the
> > opposite camp, it might be wrong.

> I think I know what you mean, but I'm not sure. SQL/prolog is about
> relational operations, rather than tree operations, so maybe a module
> system (or whatever) should be organized relationally, rather than
> hierarchically? I am currently leaning away from this idea. I think
> that some kind of relational parametric polymorphism is a better
> answer.

It seems to be related to that hierarchical relationship between domains required for 1NF. Received on Fri Apr 28 2006 - 10:48:39 CEST

Original text of this message