Re: OO versus RDB

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:13:18 GMT
Message-ID: <yvWog.3829$>

paul c wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:

>> Christian Brunschen wrote:
>>> ...
>> Fair enough.
>>  also because I am coming mainly from the direction of
>>> being a pragmatic software developer rather than a deep theorist on any
>>> particular subject.
>> With all due respect, software development is applied mathematics. One 
>> cannot be pragmatic about it while not knowing the underlying theory.
>> Similarly, pragmatic electrical engineers know Ohm's Law, Maxwell's 
>> Equations and Stoke's Theorem. I cannot imagine an electrical engineer 
>> claiming both pragmatism and ignorance of the theory of his field.
>> ...

> I think this could be qualified a little.

Anything can be qualified--the question is should it?

   Sometimes it is enough to
> know that verging into certain territory will put one in over one's
> head. I remember learning years ago that much of electrical engineering
> has to do with recognizing when the 'first approximation' is sufficient
> for circuit design, eg., certain circuits don't require the calculation
> of say, impedance or capacitance, ie., so-called second or third
> approximations.

I will substitute inductance for impedance and assume you mean in circuits whose impedance is generally resistive.

  Applying a given rdbms product seems similar, for
> example, it seems one could spend a few years trying to understand 3VL,
> or given the shortness of life, just say no and decide to avoid nulls.

You seem to have veered off into a wild tangent.

> (Granted that the word "approximation" in relational theory context is
> by itself a dangerous one to use, but that's a danger in all parallels.)
Received on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 22:13:18 CEST

Original text of this message