Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:43:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4LlKh.23958$zU1.8560_at_pd7urf1no>
>
>
> What part of that are you having a problem with?
>
>
>
>
> Nope. But I've seen some smart people new to UNIX who can't seem to get their
> head around the idea the everything is a file.
>
>
>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:43:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4LlKh.23958$zU1.8560_at_pd7urf1no>
Bernard Peek wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
I think that if they were actually smart, they must have been having an off-day. For smart, check the previous two posts on this group, from JOG and Walt. Very smart, even though they are unavoidably detained by the modern penchant for wondering if old definitions of words such as "surrogate" are somehow extinct.
p Received on Fri Mar 16 2007 - 01:43:44 CET