Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view
From: Daniel Parker <danielaparker_at_gmail.com>
Date: 14 Mar 2007 08:37:43 -0700
Message-ID: <1173886663.886078.116430_at_p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
Date: 14 Mar 2007 08:37:43 -0700
Message-ID: <1173886663.886078.116430_at_p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 14, 9:15 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
Well, the statement "instance of an ADT" is not meaningless (it can be
expressed axiomatically), and that is probably the clearest definition
of "object". Admititly there is a residual of what could be described
as "mystery OO", but it appears to be vanishing with the passage of
time.
Regards,
Daniel
Received on Wed Mar 14 2007 - 16:37:43 CET