Re: TRM - Morbidity has set in, or not?

"Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1147886349.702914.222780_at_38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> To achieve the big wins, though, we need a programming language that
> uses the RM at its core, and that has support for physical
> independence.
> I am afraid that at this time this is just a wish.

I have a different take on this, slightly.

We need a programming language that has a data model as its core, and has support for physical data independence.
The desired data model would incorporate all the benefits of the present RDM, at the least. such a data model would probably have to incorporate the RDM as a sub model.

The programming language also needs a highly developed process model at its core. The object oriented process model provides a good starting place.

Here's where I would start:

Since the time OOP became popular, the design and construction of objects has been revolutionized. But OOP depends on two fundamental concepts, not just one. In an object oriented world, there are objects, and there are messages. The messaging scheme of languages ranging from Smalltalk to Java is woefully inadequate. There has been almost no fundamental advance here in 30 years.

In order to build on the successes that OOP has acheived, the messaging scheme is going to have to go through a profound shift. When people get around to building a better messaging scheme, they will discover that the fundamental question is: how can objects share data coherently?

This turns out to be the same question that database theory began working on, back in 1970, when Codd published. It's in a different guise, but it's the same question. Received on Thu May 18 2006 - 13:09:02 CEST