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

From: Dmitry Shuklin <>
Date: 14 Mar 2007 05:44:43 -0700
Message-ID: <>

On 13 อมา, 20:42, "Marshall" <> wrote:

> This is categorically false. There are no problems that can
> be solved with pointers that cannot be solved without them.

This is categorically true.
All today successfull programming languages have pointers or references.
Many of today successfull RDB projects have surrogate identifiers (= pointers emulation)

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

Ok, You are right here, I am started programming from writing drivers more than 15 year ago)))
Let consider writing drivers as abstract task. You say that it will be almost impossible to write driver without references or pointers support. Is it?
>From other hand it will be easy to do with pointers. Ok? So system

with pointers support is full and system without them is not full ;)

> > 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.

The world not stay in one point. Do you know about managed pointers? C# or Java for example.

> If you don't see any complexity with pointers, you need to learn
> more about pointers.

Are you sure that you don't need learn more about modern programming? ;)

> 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.

It is very interesting question. To solve it we should remember about Turchin and Meta-System Transition
When one MT emulating another MT the Meta-System Transition is appearing. I say that I can do on my network DBMS all which RDMBS can without this meta-system transition. But vice-versa is not true. RDBMS can do all what can do my db only after MST.

> You claim to be doing a
> comparison of two types of systems but you apparently
> don't know very much about either one!

Ha Ha Ha,

Dmitry Shuklin, PhD (AI) Received on Wed Mar 14 2007 - 13:44:43 CET

Original text of this message