Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view
From: Alexandr Savinov <spam_at_host.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:07:42 +0100
Message-ID: <etlndc$bnk$1_at_news-a.stw-bonn.de>
>
> Amplifying:
>
> All code is data. An unparsed Fortran source file is data. Code
> compiled into Java bytecodes is data. An x86 object file,
> a PowerPC executable, an abstract syntax tree: all are data.
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:07:42 +0100
Message-ID: <etlndc$bnk$1_at_news-a.stw-bonn.de>
Marshall schrieb:
> On Mar 18, 6:04 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Drago Ganic wrote: >> >>> P.S.: I personally differentiate between code and data. To me data is like >>> mass in physics. It is static and has structure. I move it around, destroy >>> it etc. >> I suggest you find a way to check out the standard vocabularies. One can >> move code, and in fact "code motion" is an important concept. One can >> destroy it, create it etc. While code and data have very different >> meanings, the above nonsense is just nonsense.
>
> Amplifying:
>
> All code is data. An unparsed Fortran source file is data. Code
> compiled into Java bytecodes is data. An x86 object file,
> a PowerPC executable, an abstract syntax tree: all are data.
No, code and data are fundamentally different. This difference is
analogous to the difference between references and objects (identities
and entities). Storing code and data in ordinary files is only an
implementation issue (rather bad solution by the way).
RM does not use such a thing as code or reference or identity or any
other representation/access means and hence this difference between code
and data is not important (it does not exist actually). Yet it makes our
life very difficult and is the cause of serious problems in data modelling.
> Marshall
>
-- http://conceptoriented.comReceived on Mon Mar 19 2007 - 11:07:42 CET