Re: Objects and Relations

On 26 feb, 14:36, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:

> > > In OO, a thing like an image can be regarded as an Abstract Data Type
> > > (ADT).
>
> > Exactly the same as with the RM!
>
> > Please do your homework.
>
> A strawman then an insult.

Why a strawman?

OO does not have the exclusive on user defined types.

If you don't know that an open type system is one of the key components of the RM then you must do your homework.

> > Loosely speaking, relational programming is OO and a lot more.
>
> Rubbish. RM+RA isn't even Turing complete.

Any relational language must be Turing complete.

> > But it has an exclusive stake on being the best way to manage data.
>
> It's strange how so many on this NG have extrapolated RM+RA's
> capabilities beyond the storage of facts about things as typical for
> business applications. Where is the evidence for such extrapolation?

There is no extrapolation. The explanation is simple: many on this NG actually know what the RM is and you don't.

You have a very narrow and distorted view on what the RM is.

Regards Received on Mon Feb 26 2007 - 15:15:56 CET