Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

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. More accurate to say that RAM can
> represent multidimensional SQL tables, courtesy of human interpretation.
> A memory controller has no idea what an SQL table is. 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.
If you believe sticking an 'OO advocate' makes you feel more secure about what you know then fine...I really don't care.

It's not about boxing it's about discussing a limited scope issue which is physical implementation. Nobody confuses logical and physical here.  It's you who refuse to discuss physical implementation issues.

What do you think it would pointless to address such issue? The fact that HW Manufacturers won't do it is not an argument to justify it's pointless to discuss the issue of implementation.

> >> ?
> > 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 - 15:45:38 CEST