Re: Objects and Relations
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:19:14 +0100
Message-ID: <45bfd1ab$0$336$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>> Marshall wrote:
>>
>>> Neo wrote:
>>>>> I wish I had a decent general purpose relational language I could prototype this stuff in. Starting in March I hope to be able to put some decent amount of effort into that. SQL is so clunky!
>>>> So what is a proper relational expression for the string bob?
>>> #:int, c:char
>>> { (0, 'b'), (1, 'o'), (2, 'b') }
>>> But I would expect a syntactic shortcut so you could just
>>> write:
>>> "bob"
>>> as is customary in a variety of languages.
>> Indeed, and hopefully the OP will recognize how similar this is to the
>> actual contents of the string object itself. I'd also note that while
>> RDBMS are obviously not traditionally setup to handle this sort of
>> thing (in terms of physical implementation and optimization, as
>> opposed to the underlying theory), there is no reason a programming
>> language could not be constructed that represented a string datatype
>> as such.
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:19:14 +0100
Message-ID: <45bfd1ab$0$336$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Marshall wrote:
> JOG wrote:
>> Marshall wrote:
>>
>>> Neo wrote:
>>>>> I wish I had a decent general purpose relational language I could prototype this stuff in. Starting in March I hope to be able to put some decent amount of effort into that. SQL is so clunky!
>>>> So what is a proper relational expression for the string bob?
>>> #:int, c:char
>>> { (0, 'b'), (1, 'o'), (2, 'b') }
>>> But I would expect a syntactic shortcut so you could just
>>> write:
>>> "bob"
>>> as is customary in a variety of languages.
>> Indeed, and hopefully the OP will recognize how similar this is to the
>> actual contents of the string object itself. I'd also note that while
>> RDBMS are obviously not traditionally setup to handle this sort of
>> thing (in terms of physical implementation and optimization, as
>> opposed to the underlying theory), there is no reason a programming
>> language could not be constructed that represented a string datatype
>> as such.
> > Yes. I note that often when these kinds of comparisons are made, > they are implicitly made between a non-thread-safe, non-transactional > array, and a rowstore with full transactional semantics.
I remember you said you were working on a list algebra. Are/were you aiming to construct it in such a way that full transactional semantics would be a breeze?
> I can imagine a use for a non-thread-safe, non-transactional > relation; this would be a better comparison.
(see .sig) I am /not/ saying it can't be done :-)
-- "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it." Chinese Proverb.Received on Wed Jan 31 2007 - 00:19:14 CET