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

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:05:59 GMT
Message-ID: <rK2Kh.10602$> wrote:

> On Mar 14, 9:19 pm, Bob Badour <> wrote:

>>Bernard Peek wrote:
>>>On 2007-03-14, Bob Badour <> 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.
> 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

Original text of this message