Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model
Date: 4 Jun 2006 07:45:05 -0700
Message-ID: <1149432305.383531.322080_at_j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Alfredo Novoa,
Cimode ha escrito:
>
> > << This does not make any sense, the dimension of a relvar is the
> > number
> > of attributes.>>Absolutely. but SQL table implementations are not
> > relvar, just a possible representation of a relvar.
>
> This does not make any sense.
It does not make any sense because you are confusing R-Table/SQL table
and their punctual in-memory representation at runtime.
//A SQL table with three attributes is always three dimensional
independently of how it is implemented.//
At logical level yes but not at physical level.
You advance a strong argument without anything to back it up Prove it.
What is the in-memory representation of a SQL table at run time?
// If you can not understand this
then it does not make sense to continue the discussion.//
If you can not understand the difference between a relvar and what can
be its physical representation then you are probably are right that
there is no point you bringing additional confusing comments to this
thread that has a clearly defined scope (not logical, spell with me
P-H-Y-S-I-C-A-L). Several people have already understood the issue
here but you are not one of them.
//<<I suppose that you know how to represent a cube with a table.>> It
is
an analogy used for communication's sake. You misread and
misunderstood my comment. I said that a face of a cube is
bidimensional and is a comparable to what a SQL Table is to a relvar.
//Your comparation is completely nonsensical.// This is getting
boring.
Are you suggesting that the memory is less physical than the
>
> Indeed but your previous post seems to suggest the contrary.
>
The
argument here is about getting better independence *progressively*
through thinking as to how in-memory representation of relvar could be
more truthful to what a relvar .
//Another completely incoherent paragraph.//
This is getting repetitive but I should clarify that...Do you deny that
the body of a relvar represented after a select x, y, z is ran is
anything else similar to
Do you deny that X and Y represent mathematical dimensions?
Do you support that the above representation is the relvar itself. If
you answered yes to any of the above questions then you are wrong dead
wrong.
X-AXIS----------------
Y-AXIS 1,2,3
- 2,4,4
- 4,4,4
- 5,5,8
// The answer is evident to me: OO has nothing to offer. Both things
are
completely unrelated.//
Prove it. If your knowledge of OO mechanisms is as effective as the
confusions you are making between logical and physical layers, I doubt
you have any credibility onto convincing me of that.
Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 16:45:05 CEST