Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

From: paul c <>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:37:09 GMT
Message-ID: <V0gkg.31644$iF6.22365_at_pd7tw2no>

Cimode wrote:
> 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.

This thread's subject says "OO programming proponents". Nobody called you one.

I'm fine with discussing physical implementation issues. I don't see how one can realize a theory without that. There's some from me and others in this group's archives about it but I wish there were more. However, I don't see much potential in memory controllers since the kind mentioned have no programming interface that a dbms implementer could get his or her hands on.

p Received on Thu Jun 15 2006 - 18:37:09 CEST

Original text of this message