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

On 2007-03-15, Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Bernard Peek wrote:
>
>> On 2007-03-14, Bob Badour <bbadour_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.
>>
>> 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?

What part of that are you having a problem with?

>
>
>> 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?

Nope. But I've seen some smart people new to UNIX who can't seem to get their head around the idea the everything is a file.

-- 
bap_at_shrdlu.com
In search of cognoscenti