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

"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message news: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.
>
You lost me here. Received on Fri Mar 16 2007 - 14:00:12 CET