Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view

Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view

From: Tony D <>
Date: 13 Mar 2007 16:18:16 -0700
Message-ID: <>

On Mar 13, 6:42 pm, "Marshall" <> wrote:
> This is categorically false. There are no problems that can
> be solved with pointers that cannot be solved without them.

Indeed. And probably solved with greater clarity, safety, provability and maintainability. But hey, that's stuff's just not *sexy*, is it ?

> (Unless you are referring to very low level programming such
> as device drivers. And really, it's not even strictly true there.)

If you're writing device drivers and you've wound up on c.d.t., you probably took a wrong turn somewhere. Mind you, if you're writing device drivers at all ... ;)

[ sensible stuff about pointer evil snipped ]

> And as an aside, the claim that complexity increases with
> fewer features is a ridiculous one.

B-b-b-b-but Marshall, you're forgetting; if a programmer has more buttons to push or knobs to twiddle, it's more likely that someone else has some cut'n'paste code that can be used, or invented a framework to put together to churn out some approximation of the requirement, and less likely that the programmer will actually have to *think* about what they're doing. Heaven forbid. And heaven forfend that the programmer be confronted with the reality that the job at hand is complex enough without generating some spuriously complex way of trying to tackle that job.

> Well, of course they can "do the same". You can do the
> same with just cons cells and the lambda calculus.

Who needs the cons cells ?? S and K ! (Who needs I anyway?)

> Or just with Turing machines.

The lambda calculus is about as simple as it gets; certainly simpler to describe abstractly than Turing machines, I reckon.

> Whether two systems can
> do the same thing or not is generally a trivial question,
> since pretty much all systems are computationally
> equivalent.

That blanket statement makes me fidgety but off the top of my head I don't have a straightforward rebuttal, other than embedded languages I suppose...

> 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.

Well yes. I would suggest he could try starting with "views".

Received on Tue Mar 13 2007 - 18:18:16 CDT

Original text of this message