Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: terminology

Re: terminology

From: Cimode <>
Date: 18 Jun 2006 15:32:49 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Given you total misunderstanding of RM, I doubt you can actually produce an efficient programming language. You need to get a better understanding of RM first..Then I can wish you good luck...

If you are pretending will not take that as an attack...

Marshall wrote:
> paul c wrote:
> > Marshall wrote:
> > > paul c wrote:
> > >>...
> > > Certainly there are different contexts in which the term "variable"
> > > is used, and across those different contexts there may be
> > > incompatible meanings. I was speaking of the programming
> > > languages theory ("PLT") context. So I am speaking of regular
> > > data variables, rather than logic variables--they are quite
> > > different.
> > > ...
> >
> > Okay, not trying to give you a hard time,
> Didn't think you were; thought you made a valuable point.
> > as I liked the economical
> > phrasing, it was just that the start of the original msg mentioned "in
> > the c.d.t. context" and i feel a conventional programming language
> > must be a mere servant of that.
> You know, it's funny you should mention that.
> After responding to your last post, it got me thinking about
> how RT and PLT fit together. It occurred to me years ago
> that the RA would be an extremely useful addition to a
> general purpose programming language, and later, reading
> TTM, it was clear that others had already had the same idea.
> TTM is extremely well developed in the RT part. Indeed, it
> is the most thorough treatment of the topic I know of, and
> probably the only one to give it its due importance. But it is
> fairly uninspired in the PLT part. There is no mention of
> closures (in the PLT sense,) lambda, higher-order functions,
> recursion or tail-call optimization, process calculi or even
> message passing, type inference, parametric polymorphism
> (outside of its built-in use with relations) or metaprogramming
> anywhere in the book that I can find. (Although I only have
> the 2nd ed.; haven't gotten to the 3rd ed. yet.)
> The thing is, I think the goal (or at least *a* goal) is to produce
> a great general-purpose programming language with first-class
> support for RT. I don't think that producing a relational algebra
> system with support for general purpose computation is quite
> as interesting. So in that sense, I think what I really want to
> see is RT embedded into PLT, and not the other way around,
> although I agree that the RT part is foundational and therefor
> crucial.
> Marshall
Received on Sun Jun 18 2006 - 17:32:49 CDT

Original text of this message