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

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:19:56 GMT
Message-ID: <0b1Kh.10582$PV3.107932@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Bernard Peek wrote:

> On 2007-03-14, Bob Badour <bbadour_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.

>
> The word, in the context of object-oriented languages and databases, seems
> to me to have precisely two meanings. One is the set of identifiable things
> and the other is the set of computer-based models of identifiable things.

Huh?

> It does impede communication, but it's not for want of trying. I think it's the
> universality of the concept that may be at the heart of the problem.

Um, are you saying that if it means everything and anything then it means nothing?

The RM
> fans ask whether something is an object and naturally get the answer "yes."

No way. I have never heard an intelligent knowledgeable person ask whether something is an object. A person with a clue would ask for a definition.

[snip] Received on Wed Mar 14 2007 - 20:19:56 CDT