Re: Objects and Relations
Date: 23 Feb 2007 23:17:23 -0800
On Feb 23, 10:16 pm, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 12:12 pm, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 23, 6:40 pm, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > > You did not realise my point? I'm talking about representing these
> > > things and processing these things, and not merely stating facts
> > > *about* these things. My whole point has been that RM is perfect for
> > > the latter but not so good for the former. If you agree with that
> > > then please say so.
> > I don't, and as near as I can tell no one else here does either.
> > > If you think RM is suitable for scenegraphs I would be particularly
> > > interested.
> > That is a strange way to think about it. On the one hand you have
> > a collection type and on the other hand you have application level
> > constructs. Let's invert it:
> > If you think hashtables are suitable for payroll I would
> > be particularly interested.
> > Doesn't make much sense.
> > (Note that this is *structurally* similar to what you wrote,
> > but not semantically similar.)
> I'm not interested in metaphorical argument.
That's funny that you would say that, because I view what you are saying as entirely metaphorical. Actually maybe metaphysical would be closer. In any event I was pointing out that you were comparing things from different domains, and that that isn't productive here.
> I'm aware of half a dozen scenegraph frameworks and none use the
> relational approach. Often scenegraph nodes are Java or C++ objects [...]
Java and C++ don't have relational operations, neither in the language nor in the libraries. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Marshall Received on Sat Feb 24 2007 - 08:17:23 CET