Re: Canonical DB

From: J M Davitt <jdavitt_at_aeneas.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:17:55 GMT
Message-ID: <7SRmg.65960$mh.55171@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>

Robert Martin wrote:
> On 2006-06-21 18:47:03 -0500, mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> said:
>

>> Robert Martin wrote:
>>
>>> mAsterdam said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I asked "Which (or which types of)
>>>> computations are easier [with a
>>>> navigational structure]?"
>>>
>>>
>>> Things like tree searches, graph walks, etc.
>>
>>
>> No, tree searches and graph walks are things
>> you *need* to do (and specify) when all you have
>> is navigational structures. They are part of their cost.

>
>
> Uh... So in RM there just *aren't* graphs or trees?

Just as there aren't graphs or trees in C++ or python or ruby or C#.

In the RM, there are databases, relations, tuples, and scalars. These are used to construct models of thing's you're interested in - just like C++ or python or ruby or C#.

>>
>> Now where is the benefit - what are you computing:
>> Which (or which types of) computations are easier
>> with a navigational structure?

>
>
> The cheapest path between two nodes through a network graph?
Received on Fri Jun 23 2006 - 08:17:55 CDT