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 01:31:26 GMT
Message-ID: <Ol1Kh.10589$PV3.107063_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> How so? Certainly arithmetic works just fine without pointers.
> Tony mentioned the lambda calculus, which also lacks pointers,
> as does the relational algebra. Some of these are even
> computationally complete.
>
> Certainly it is true that there is no *computation* that requires
> pointers.
>
>
>
> What is your definition of "successful?" Certainly there are
> popular languages with pointers; this by itself is not much
> of a testimonial, though. When I look at job boards in the
> USA I see more listings that mention SQL than I do that
> mention C++; does that mean SQL wins now? Does the
> installed base of Windows mean it is the most technically
> advanced operating system?
>
> I do not dismiss popularity as a metric, but neither do I
> place much importance on it. Certainly it is important from
> a *business* perspective, however my field is not sales
> and marketing.
>
>
>
> Surrogate identifiers, as I understand the term, are not pointers,
> nor are they pointer emulation.
>
> To the extent that RDBMS products or standards *do* include
> pointers, this is a response to market realities rather than a
> technical need. There are many who mistakenly feel that pointers
> are somehow necessary, as this thread illustrates.
>
> Impossible is a strong word. But probably we don't even need
> it--if I had to write a device driver, I'd probably use C, and use
> pointers to boot. Right tool for the job and all. But that doesn't
> mean I think pointers are a good technique, or that C is a high
> level language. On the contrary, C is quite a low level language.
> Generally it is a good idea to work at as high a level as one
> can, which directly leads us to the conclusion that C should
> be avoided wherever possible.
>
>
>
>
> Again, a word like "full" isn't very helpful without some more
> specific context. I've already pointed out that pointers are
> unnecessary for complete computational models.
>
> If the topic at hand is writing device drivers, then I have
> nothing much to say. However device drivers are a
> very specific niche within software development, and again,
> very low level.
>
> Consider the plight of the Java programmer, who cannot
> statically tell whether a reference refers to an actual object
> or not (it may be null), nor whether there is any aliasing.
> He cannot preserve pointer semantics across more than
> one serialized stream, and generally doesn't know why.
> NullPointerException is a very common source of Java
> program premature termination, and yet this could be
> completely eliminated with better static analysis, or
> with simply removing pointers from the model completely.
>
> Also, you did not address my point about complexity.
>
> On the contrary, I am constantly reading about modern
> programming, and wish to learn much, much more. However,
> if you think C# and Java represent "modern" programming,
> then clearly I'm way ahead of you.
>
> I also note that you have sidestepped my point that pointers
> bring a complexity which is a significant source of bugs, and
> you profess to be unaware of that. This suggests you are
> not a good candidate to compare models.
>
> I am unfamiliar with Turchin's work. I am more familiar with
> Church and Turing and those fellows. I again point out that
> the lambda calculus is as computationally powerful as it is
> possible to be, and does not contain pointers. Turing
> machines likewise.
>
>
>
>
> You laugh, but you do nothing to dispel my points.
Received on Thu Mar 15 2007 - 02:31:26 CET
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:31:26 GMT
Message-ID: <Ol1Kh.10589$PV3.107063_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Marshall wrote:
> On Mar 14, 4:44 am, "Dmitry Shuklin" <shuk..._at_bk.ru> wrote:
>
>>On 13 อมา, 20:42, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>This is categorically false. There are no problems that can >>>be solved with pointers that cannot be solved without them. >> >>This is categorically true.
>
> How so? Certainly arithmetic works just fine without pointers.
> Tony mentioned the lambda calculus, which also lacks pointers,
> as does the relational algebra. Some of these are even
> computationally complete.
>
> Certainly it is true that there is no *computation* that requires
> pointers.
>
>
>>All today successfull programming languages have pointers or >>references.
>
> What is your definition of "successful?" Certainly there are
> popular languages with pointers; this by itself is not much
> of a testimonial, though. When I look at job boards in the
> USA I see more listings that mention SQL than I do that
> mention C++; does that mean SQL wins now? Does the
> installed base of Windows mean it is the most technically
> advanced operating system?
>
> I do not dismiss popularity as a metric, but neither do I
> place much importance on it. Certainly it is important from
> a *business* perspective, however my field is not sales
> and marketing.
>
>
>>Many of today successfull RDB projects have surrogate identifiers (= >>pointers emulation)
>
> Surrogate identifiers, as I understand the term, are not pointers,
> nor are they pointer emulation.
>
> To the extent that RDBMS products or standards *do* include
> pointers, this is a response to market realities rather than a
> technical need. There are many who mistakenly feel that pointers
> are somehow necessary, as this thread illustrates.
I disagree. No market ever existed for them, and the market never took them up. Self-aggrandizing ignorants pushed them into the standard because they were stupid enough to believe their own bullshit.
>>>(Unless you are referring to very low level programming such >>>as device drivers. And really, it's not even strictly true there.) >> >>Ok, You are right here, I am started programming from writing drivers >>more than 15 year ago))) >>Let consider writing drivers as abstract task. You say that it will be >>almost impossible to write driver without references or pointers >>support. Is it?
>
> Impossible is a strong word. But probably we don't even need
> it--if I had to write a device driver, I'd probably use C, and use
> pointers to boot. Right tool for the job and all. But that doesn't
> mean I think pointers are a good technique, or that C is a high
> level language. On the contrary, C is quite a low level language.
> Generally it is a good idea to work at as high a level as one
> can, which directly leads us to the conclusion that C should
> be avoided wherever possible.
>
>
>
>>From other hand it will be easy to do with pointers. Ok? So system >>with pointers support is full and system without them is not full ;)
>
> Again, a word like "full" isn't very helpful without some more
> specific context. I've already pointed out that pointers are
> unnecessary for complete computational models.
>
> If the topic at hand is writing device drivers, then I have
> nothing much to say. However device drivers are a
> very specific niche within software development, and again,
> very low level.
Device drivers are not programming -- they are plumbing. The hardware dictates everything.
We should not measure software development
> by the standards of device drivers. In fact, it should be a
> strong goal to make as much of software development as
> unlike device drivers as possible.
>
>
>
>>>>I don't see any complexity wich was appeared with pointers. But I see >>>>it when pointers gone. >> >>>Consider the plight of the C programmer, who cannot statically >>>tell the type of the thing pointed to by a pointer, nor whether >>>there is aliasing, nor whether it even points to actual memory. >> >>The world not stay in one point. Do you know about managed pointers? >>C# or Java for example.
>
> Consider the plight of the Java programmer, who cannot
> statically tell whether a reference refers to an actual object
> or not (it may be null), nor whether there is any aliasing.
> He cannot preserve pointer semantics across more than
> one serialized stream, and generally doesn't know why.
> NullPointerException is a very common source of Java
> program premature termination, and yet this could be
> completely eliminated with better static analysis, or
> with simply removing pointers from the model completely.
>
> Also, you did not address my point about complexity.
Start with a simple structure like a relation that is both necessary and sufficient. Adding another structure, such as a pointer, increases complexity without any compensating benefit.
>>>If you don't see any complexity with pointers, you need to learn >>>more about pointers. >> >>Are you sure that you don't need learn more about modern >>programming? ;)
>
> On the contrary, I am constantly reading about modern
> programming, and wish to learn much, much more. However,
> if you think C# and Java represent "modern" programming,
> then clearly I'm way ahead of you.
>
> I also note that you have sidestepped my point that pointers
> bring a complexity which is a significant source of bugs, and
> you profess to be unaware of that. This suggests you are
> not a good candidate to compare models.
Self-aggrandizing ignorants have no desire to learn. If they remain ignorant, they can continue to deny awareness.
>>>Well, of course they can "do the same". You can do the >>>same with just cons cells and the lambda calculus. Or >>>just with Turing machines. Whether two systems can >>>do the same thing or not is generally a trivial question, >>>since pretty much all systems are computationally >>>equivalent. >> >>It is very interesting question. To solve it we should remember about >>Turchin and Meta-System Transition >>When one MT emulating another MT the Meta-System Transition is >>appearing. I say that I can do on my network DBMS all which RDMBS can >>without this meta-system transition. But vice-versa is not true. RDBMS >>can do all what can do my db only after MST.
>
> I am unfamiliar with Turchin's work. I am more familiar with
> Church and Turing and those fellows. I again point out that
> the lambda calculus is as computationally powerful as it is
> possible to be, and does not contain pointers. Turing
> machines likewise.
>
>
>
>>>You claim to be doing a >>>comparison of two types of systems but you apparently >>>don't know very much about either one! >> >>Ha Ha Ha,
>
> You laugh, but you do nothing to dispel my points.
Received on Thu Mar 15 2007 - 02:31:26 CET