Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model
Date: 4 Jun 2006 13:01:32 -0700
I will be more succint in future comments as wordyness seems to be asource of confusion.
Bob Badour wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > To Bob Badour
> > As a proof of good faith that I am not trying to ellide your questions.
> > I will change the quoting. Hope this will clarify...
> > Bob Badour wrote:
> > <<What are the two dimensions? Can you name them?>>
> > For bidimensional RAM's, the 2 dimensions are RowAddress and
> > ColumnAddress
> > For tridimensional RAM's (64bit architectures) the 3 dimensions are
> > Block Adress, RowAddress, ColumnAddress
> > Does that make sense? It was written above.
> It doesn't make sense yet. First, you will have to define: "RowAddress",
> "ColumnAddress" and "BlockAddress" as part of some coherent
> computational model.
It does not makes *yet*?. Mister, what is nonsense does not make sense *ever*.
Besides when was the last time you checked memory architectures? in the 80's? Current 64 bit memory architectures already support this adressing scheme without the need to inventing a computational model (For whatever it maybe). What do you call *linear*
> Obviously, you are trying to define some computational model for the
> physical implementation of a dbms. You apparently want to discard the
> linear memory addressing scheme used on almost all computer
> architectures for a different addressing scheme.
> Once you completely define the computational model, what you say might
> make sense. Until then, you are just using meaningless terms.
> Apparently, in your addressing scheme, one may not access memory through
> a single pointer. Instead, one must use three pointers.
This comment is the most Interesting you have posted so far. What is linear to you? Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 22:01:32 CEST