Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model
Date: 4 Jun 2006 02:22:14 -0700
Message-ID: <1149412934.200897.91650_at_h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Bob Badour,
You declared talking about the posting I previously made
// instance, he keeps referring to bidimensionality of a physical
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
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.//
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).
//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 - 11:22:14 CEST