Re: Objects and Relations

From: Walt <wamitty_at_verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:14:41 GMT
Message-ID: <lP7xh.1196$fT1.1117@trndny02>

"David BL" <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au> wrote in message news:1170123546.683781.304150_at_l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 7:08 am, Kenneth Downs <knode.wants.t..._at_see.sigblock>
> wrote:
> > David BL wrote:
> > > Many of the wars between the OO and RM camps end up in side issues,
> > > often with unsubstantiated performance or scalability claims or
> > > discussions about whether physical independence is good or bad.
> >
> > > 1. OO is good for string, deque, front ends, simulations, games
> > > 2. RM is good for storing information about Employees, Students,
> > > University courses, Inventory systems, Invoices.
> >
> > > These predictions are borne out in practice.
>
> > You can arrive at the same conclusions by a simpler route.
>
> It is hard to imagine anything simpler than asking whether an object
> pretends to be something else.
>
> > All databases, RM or otherwise, are about record-keeping. That is their
> > purpose.
>
> I presume by "keeping" you mean persistence. By "record" do you mean
> a tuple of a relation? If so I don't agree. An RDB is about "record
> keeping", but not an OODB (used appropriately).

I don't think the term "record-keeping" is closely related to the term "record" as you assert above.
Record-keeping predates electronic computers. Received on Sat Feb 03 2007 - 16:14:41 CST