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

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:15:15 GMT
Message-ID: <DzSJh.10285$PV3.104839@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Walt wrote:

> "Tony D" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1173827127.666483.20690_at_b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> 

>>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

> 
> Mostly agreed.
> 
> 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.

Walt, I have been an OO programmer for 20 years. I respectfully suggest you reassess your interpretation.

> The two groups talk past each other. And the word "object" in the title is > a real good indicator. Sigh!

The word "object" is essentially meaningless. It has no clear definition and gets used to mean a variety of things. Those who use it frequently do so to impede communication. Received on Wed Mar 14 2007 - 08:15:15 CDT