Re: I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside

From: Josip Almasi <joe_at_vrspace.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:56:59 +0200
Message-ID: <e8u0sk$rqg$1@ss408.t-com.hr>

Bob Badour wrote:
>
> I can only conclude you lack intelligence, education or both. The reason
> RDBMS will remain for a long time is exactly the reason why OODBMS is
> going nowhere: the foundations upon which each is built. One is founded
> on modern mathematics and the other is founded on nothing much in
> particular.
>

>> WRT technical reasons... OK I'll give you an example.
>> I do use RDBMS for storage but the way I use it I could use dBase too.

>
> Why do you do that? Are you braindead or something?

I'm simply writing object oriented applications that need persistence, and as you seem to have noticed (since you claim that OO model is founded on nothing), RDBMS and ER model in general is obviously unfit for the purpose.
Its a well know fact, here, have a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-Relational_impedance_mismatch

Access to objects in object-oriented programs is allegedly best performed via interfaces that together provide the only access to the internals of an object. Similarly, essential OOP concepts for classes of objects, inheritance and polymorphism, are not supported by database systems.
...
In particular, relational database transactions, as the smallest unit of work performed by databases, are much larger than any operations performed by objects in object-oriented design. ...

>> I don't need referential integrity or cascades, since OO model takes 
>> care of it.

>
> Yeah, sure. Right.

Oh but it does, object cannot have reference to a deleted object (referential integrity), simply setting a member to null prunes entire subtree (cascade delete), setting member value to anything else reflect this value to all referrer object (cascade update), etc, etc.

>> This isn't production code, in fact I've never even tried it, as I 
>> never needed it.

>
> I see. You won't need it until you need it. And then what?

I suggest you rephrase your question to emphasize expected answer more clearly.
Or why not just tell me, you _know_, right?

>> But my point is it gets much more simpler with OOP.

>
> Correction: Your ignorant assertion is it gets much more simpler with
> OOP. Any informed and reasonably intelligent person will think you are a
> nut just for saying it.

Well thank you for your correction; I'm glad no informed and reasonably intelligent person have seen my writings yet.

> Is it? And what is the foundation of these event models you imagine? How
> do they differ from triggered procedures?

Errr... how about you take a course or two in OOP? You might dig that in just a few hours...

Regards... Received on Mon Jul 10 2006 - 11:56:59 CDT