Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:59:41 GMT
"Tony D" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message
> On Mar 9, 11:44 am, "Dmitry Shuklin" <shuk..._at_bk.ru> wrote:
> [ lots of snip ]
> I have a personal rule that I try to stick to. It's quite simple: if
> it's in c.d.t., and has "object oriented" in the title, it's probably
> not worth reading. This rule does not testing from time to time, so I
> paddled through this thread. The following three statements of
> Dmitry's stand out :
> March 13, 6:04pm :
> "I don't warry about correctness." and
> "why? implementation of vtbl can be done extreamelly fast."
> March 13, 6:11pm :
> "Hm, without pointers I will be unable to solve my problems."
> March 13, 6:15pm :
> "View contans not the same row, just a copy of attribute's values."
> Or, more succintly put, it's the classic programmer's question :
> "How quickly would you like your wrong answers ?"
> Ah well. Rule tested, proven still sound. (sigh)
> - Tony
The people who promote OO in c.d.t. nearly always write as if Bachman had won the great debate. The idea that it is possible to specify data without specifying the location of said data eludes them. The idea that it might be desirable to do so is just completely beyond their ken. If you miss these two points, there is no hope that you'll get the gist of RM, no matter how well you learn the rest of it.
The people who promote RM in c.d.t. usually write as if the advances in programming productivity that accompanied the gradual shift from structured programming to OO were of no interest or value whatsoever.
The two groups talk past each other. And the word "object" in the title is a real good indicator. Sigh! Received on Wed Mar 14 2007 - 12:59:41 CET