Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view
From: Daniel Parker <danielaparker_at_gmail.com>
Date: 14 Mar 2007 08:45:30 -0700
Message-ID: <1173887130.484521.142470_at_p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
Date: 14 Mar 2007 08:45:30 -0700
Message-ID: <1173887130.484521.142470_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 is perhaps the clearest definition of
"object". Admittitly, there remains a vestige of what might be
described as "mystery OO", but that appears to be vanishing with the
passage of time.
Regards,
Daniel Parker
Received on Wed Mar 14 2007 - 16:45:30 CET