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 03:05:59 GMT
Message-ID: <rK2Kh.10602$PV3.108180_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>Bernard Peek wrote:
>>
>>>On 2007-03-14, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>The word "object" is essentially meaningless.
>>
>>>The word, in the context of object-oriented languages and databases, seems
>>>to me to have precisely two meanings. One is the set of identifiable things
>>>and the other is the set of computer-based models of identifiable things.
>>
>>Huh?
>
> I didn't think that you'd like that answer :-)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:05:59 GMT
Message-ID: <rK2Kh.10602$PV3.108180_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
danielaparker_at_gmail.com wrote:
> 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 :-)
Like it? It's not a matter of like or dislike. The answer was not even wrong. Although, it was an excellent example of how deep the bullshit goes.
>>>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".
Can you define "mystery OO" ? Received on Thu Mar 15 2007 - 04:05:59 CET