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 03:03:47 GMT
Message-ID: <nI2Kh.10601$PV3.108180@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

danielaparker_at_gmail.com wrote:

> On Mar 14, 9:17 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>

>>Daniel Parker wrote:
>>
>>>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)
>>
>>What does it mean, though? A variable, perhaps

>
> Intuitively, a typed record of functions. There's a literature on
> Abstract Data Types, which makes the notion precise, and as my math
> professor once said, we're responsible for own intuitions, our own
> pictures. For everyone who has written a Java interface or a pure
> virtual C++ class, and provided an implementation thereof, they'll
> have that as a picture.
>
> But then there's mystery OO - "object identity", "modeling the real
> world", "behaviour", etc. - which does not lend itself to precise
> formulation.

Is that any relative of mystery meat? Received on Wed Mar 14 2007 - 22:03:47 CDT