# Re: OO versus RDB

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:13:18 GMT

Message-ID: <yvWog.3829$pu3.90571_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

> 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.
*

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