Re: Shared game-data

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 00:54:59 GMT
Message-ID: <D%c5g.1129$A26.31099_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>


Alvin Ryder wrote:

> Alfredo Novoa wrote:
>

>>>In business systems it is desirable to normalize the data, lets just
>>>discuss first normal form, all attributes are atomic.
>>
>>>OTOH game objects contain some atomic types but they also contain
>>>pointers, other objects, trees, collections ... which is all very
>>>non-atomic and very non-normalized.
>>
>>Wrong. It is evident that you don't know the Relational Model very
>>well. That's why you don't see its relevance in game programming, which
>>is evident for people with a good understanding of the RM like Bob and
>>Marshall.
>>

>
> Alfredo, exactly which part is wrong?
>
> Are you saying the RM does not advocate normalization?

Everything beyond 1st normal form is a direct application of the RM to certain problems of data management; however, the relational model does not in any way require them. Ignoring normalization is just a stupid way to make expressing one's needs difficult.

> Are you saying first normal form doesn't require atomic data?

Define atomic.

> Are you saying objects used in games, or any OOP, don't need to contain
> references to other objects, trees or collections?

At the logical level? No, absolutely, not. They do not need them. Translating a correct logical description to a performant physical layout will use references and a variety of physical structures, but that is a completely separate concern.

> If I'm wrong I'll admit it but why don't you show me the errors and
> provide the corrections?

I provided some corrections. However, none of the details you introduced to confuse the issues affect the liberal way you spread ignorant horseshit. Received on Mon May 01 2006 - 02:54:59 CEST

Original text of this message