Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)

From: Cimode <>
Date: 1 Jun 2006 08:22:08 -0700
Message-ID: <>

<<You underestimate the power of a good formalism.>> I am not sure what you intend by *good formalism*...If by *formalism* you mean *coherence* then I totally agree...(Thanks for clarifying this for I may have misunderstood)

Because of its coherence, I realized that the thinking mechanism and semantics that allows to build SQL statements probably meets logic of extraction requirements better than any other language. My impression however is that it does not sufficiently drive better in memory implementation R Tables and even goes counterstream to a real independence between the logical and physical layer. In a word, I am under the impression that SQL (which was not initially thought of as it is now) is becoming a limitation of the relational model. Which is why a question may be asked which is: can OO bring something to that? I kept hearing about OO fuss about so many years that I am interested now as what it may concretely bring to relational implementation... For instance inheritance is something that may prove extremely useful in the implementation of subtype/supertype RTables.

What is your thought about that? Thank you for your feedback..

Bob Badour wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > Thanks for the guidance...I will keep in mind your advice to give more
> > targetted questions...The subject would be to find out how and what OO
> > mechanisms (nice definition) can contribute to build better
> > implementations of relational requirements throughout the system life
> > cycle...
> >
> > Questions I would like to discuss are of the following type:
> >
> >>What are the available OO languages that can do a better job than SQL into handling data definition and manipulation...Java?
> >>What are the limitations of these languages to do what's above? What's currently missing in OO (Is object "persistence" a desperate attempt at establishing representations of R Tables)
> >
> > My point is to help establish a practical list of feature (some kind of
> > Bill of Material) of important requirements OO languages should meet to
> > be potential candidates to better allow relational implementation. I
> > do believe this kind of debate can be more useful that raw opposition
> > between programmers and relational advocates. As you stated, OO can in
> > no case be put on the same standpoint than relational model as they are
> > of totally different nature...In a schematic manner, it seems OO is
> > more about implementation than abstraction only a model can bring. It
> > also seems to me OO mechanisms could do as well as current SQL (at
> > least its current form) into implementing better DBMS... Question is
> > how?
> You underestimate the power of a good formalism. OO doesn't stand a
> chance even against SQL.
Received on Thu Jun 01 2006 - 17:22:08 CEST

Original text of this message