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: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 4 Jun 2006 02:22:14 -0700
Message-ID: <1149412934.200897.91650@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


Bob Badour,

You declared talking about the posting I previously made

// instance, he keeps referring to bidimensionality of a physical
 representation of a row when that is basically meaningless to the  anglophones according to the definitions of the terms he uses, and he  has made absolutely no effort to try to define the terms he is using.//

At several occasions in the thread, I gave explicit (which makes them look *wordy* according to your communication standard) explanations and even reused you own examples to point out the fundamental issue at stake which is in-memory representation of relvars and what kind of OO mechanisms could help improving the situation. But you got the nerve indicating that I make no effort to define them!

What exact form of definition may help then (please answer this particular question)? You pointed out at several occasions that these statement were nonsense? At least 2 people on this thread have made sense and addressed the main issue asking relevant questions ( J M Davitt and Alvin Ryder).

As nonsense can not be understood by anybody because it lacks coherence, the logic behind you declaring that my comments are being nonsense is basically flawed.

I have at several occasions pointed out that the points you made were irrelevant to the objective of this thread but you keep bringing back the subject off track and blaming me for being repetitive.

//I asked him point blank why he thought the linearity of the address
 space had any bearing on the dimensionality of the table, and he ignored
 the question. I don't think he understands enough english to participate
 effectively.//
My grasp of english is far from being perfect (I know that) but it is sufficient to point out that the question you adressed is irrelevant. Answer is this last question is obviously no. How can you ask this question when I clearly indicated that physical layer does not define logical deifnition of an R Table. You even indicated rightfully to vc that I am not trying to redefine a logical model. What you believe is the question I have adressed would have indicated the opposite.

Again, my belief is the fact that physical addressing scheme (be it linear or bidimensional) has a limiting effect onto representating and therefore manipulating adequately a relvar which is totally different from what you think I am stating.

I hope this makes more sense.

//His posts are extremely wordy and nonsensical. If he had a better
grasp
 of the language, I think he would communicate more succinctly and make

 more sense.//

I will be more succint from now on.

// Instead of trying to find better (ie. accurate and succinct)
vocabulary,
 he just keeps repeating the nonsense.// I have counted the word *nonsense* and the adjective *nonsensical* at least 6 times in your comments and you blame me being repetitive...

While I initially believed you meant *nonsense* as a synonym to *no making any sense* and that it was due to my lack of english proficiency, your hastiness to disqualify anything that does not fit your perception of what is and what is not relevant makes this term a blackbox term in which you try to put people's comments and intentions.

Therefore, I would ask you to stop using it as it traduces a lack of respect for the efforts I am putting into trying to exchange with you. Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 04:22:14 CDT

Original text of this message

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