Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 17:25:04 GMT, Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Apparently, in your addressing scheme, one may not access memory through
>a single pointer. Instead, one must use three pointers.

I just wandered (back) into the newsgroup yesterday for the first time in a while, and onto this thread in the middle of things, and have only read a few exchanges, but maybe this is the crux of Cimode's concerns about memory yada yada.

Odd that this thread doesn't seem to use terms like "projection" or "composition" (maybe I did see "decomposition"). Or, y'know, "semantics".

The relational model really only uses one "relation", which is adjacency. Perhaps this is another Cimode concept in the making. You can have as many dimensions of adjacency as you like. You can reinterpret a dimension of adjacency as something else, like time sequence, but as soon as you do, you run across the limits of the relational model. Now, it is also the great strength of the relational model that it is built so simply, and the question is whether that strength is comprimised when we go to extend it.

I continue to be nonplussed by recent Date advocacies of sets as field domains. OTOH, I am also nonplussed by the industry's history of limiting user defined types and corresponding operators along the model of C++. Sure, you can make a mess (see any large C++ program for proof!), but that is the only technical direction from the limits of the current "flat" (adjacency) relational model to the fancy, rich New World we all want to get to.

J. Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 19:53:31 CEST