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

From: <danielaparker_at_gmail.com>
Date: 14 Mar 2007 18:52:41 -0700
Message-ID: <1173923561.949995.58130@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>

On Mar 14, 9:19 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Bernard Peek wrote:
> > On 2007-03-14, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >>The word "object" is essentially meaningless.
>
> > 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?

I didn't think that you'd like that answer :-)
>
> > 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?
>

This is kind of what I was referring to by "mystery OO".

Regards,
Daniel Parker Received on Wed Mar 14 2007 - 20:52:41 CDT