Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view
Date: 13 Mar 2007 11:42:34 -0700
On Mar 13, 11:11 am, "Dmitry Shuklin" <shuk..._at_bk.ru> wrote:
> On 12 อมา, 20:56, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > But when I lose pointers I lose instance identity.
> > Yes. One of the biggest advantages of excluding pointers
> > from the model is that you lose instance identity, and all the
> > complexity that comes with it. This is particularly desirable
> > in a distributed context.
> Hm, without pointers I will be unable to solve my problems.
This is categorically false. There are no problems that can be solved with pointers that cannot be solved without them. (Unless you are referring to very low level programming such as device drivers. And really, it's not even strictly true there.)
> I don't see any complexity wich was appeared with pointers. But I see
> it when pointers gone.
Consider the plight of the C programmer, who cannot statically tell the type of the thing pointed to by a pointer, nor whether there is aliasing, nor whether it even points to actual memory.
> > Simply heaping together features from OOPLs and
> > the relational model will not get you good design.
> I don't want to combine RM and OO. I just comparing them.
> And as result I found that network DBMS can do all what
> RDBMS can with the same or better performance.
Well, of course they can "do the same". You can do the same with just cons cells and the lambda calculus. Or just with Turing machines. Whether two systems can do the same thing or not is generally a trivial question, since pretty much all systems are computationally equivalent.
As to your performance claims, they are as unsupported as the rest of your analysis. You claim to be doing a comparison of two types of systems but you apparently don't know very much about either one! I suggest an education is a prerequisite to valid analysis.
Marshall Received on Tue Mar 13 2007 - 19:42:34 CET