Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 15 Jun 2006 06:16:12 -0700
Message-ID: <1150377372.658023.46480@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

paul c wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > ...
> > I state that BB is wrong in saying RAM SQL tables representations are
> > multidimensional...
> > ...
>
> I doubt if he said any such thing.

He has advocated the opposite was wrong (I stated it is either budimensional or tridimensional) which is equivalent to advocate it is multidimensional. In fact, I don't exactly know what he tries to state...

More accurate to say that RAM can
> represent multidimensional SQL tables, courtesy of human interpretation.
BS. Human interpretation is a subjective concept. I stated clearly defined argument based on knowledge of memory physical architectures not on some BS computational model.

> A memory controller has no idea what an SQL table is.
Of course it does not. We are at physical mechanized level.

OO advocates seem
> to be forever boxing themselves into such corners because of neglecting
> to separate logical from physical. Alfredo put it exactly when he said
> the two are unrelated. Maybe one could define relations to describe
> this but it would be pointless since the HW mfr's are unlikely to burn a
> dbms into their controllers.

I am not an OO advocate I dont' even know about OO. I am just observing a simple elementary fact on physical level and drawing a conclusion from it. I just don't understand what makes so complex to understand...

> >> ?
> > Bob Badour wrote:
> >> Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> >>
> >>> Cimode ha escrito:
> >>>
> >>>> The question is whether OO in-memory
> >>>> mechanisms could support such effort. And how?
> >>> The answer is evident to me: OO has nothing to offer. Both things are
> >>> completely unrelated.
> >> Hear! Hear!
> >
Received on Thu Jun 15 2006 - 08:16:12 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US