Re: OT fallacies

"David Cressey" <dcressey_at_verizon.net> wrote in message news:AAWgg.2102$LN1.1229_at_trndny01...
>
> "mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message
> news:448413b5$0$31644$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> > Patrick May wrote:
> > > I did not find him backing up his claims regarding Mr. Martin's
> > > "foolishness". Can you or can you not point out a specific example of
> > > him doing so?
> >
> > > Robert Martin ha escrito:
> > >
> > >>> Ridiculous. OO and RDB coexist very nicely together. I've never
heard
> > >>> anyone suggest that searches aren't needed.
> > >
> > > Relational databases have nothing to do with searches.
> > > This shows profound ignorance about data management theory.
> >
> >

> I disagree with both points.

> The need to support searches is one reason for building a database in the
> first place. Perhaps the foremost reason.

I would say relational databases are more about "finding" than about "searching" :-)

> The way relational databases support searches is one reason for choosing a
> relational database over some other kind. The same comment can be made
> regarding SQL databases.

The way relational databases support "finding" is one reason for choosing a database over a file system. :-)

> Further, claiming that OO and RDB can coexist very nicely does not even
> begin to demonstrate that the author is ignorant of data managment theory,
> any more that anyone else.

That depends on what OO means:

- eggs
- other orthogonals :-)
- etc.

> As for me, I've seen a number of cases where OO and RDB did NOT coexist
> very nicely, so the claim that they CAN coexist very nicely carries some
> element of surprise for me. I'm skeptical, but I'm not about to dsimiss
it
> as ignorant.

As for what some statements shows: they show our interpretation of our interpretation of them - our own foolishness. Received on Mon Jun 05 2006 - 16:24:54 CEST