Re: Mixing OO and DB
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:32:13 -0500
Message-ID: <daniel_t-2CAF35.10321309022008_at_earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>
mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote:
> Any ideas except 'the other guys are so stupid'?
I've been on comp.object a long time, never visited
comp.databases.theory. David Cressey admitted to having "not seen much"
of OO theory, so I will have to admit to having not seen much of
database theory, and even less of SQL.
I bring up SQL because Mr. Cressey says that, "A lot of us mere
practicioners [sic] treat the SQL model and the relational model as
variations on the same theme." If SQL is the exemplar of the relational
model, then let me propose that SmallTalk be used as the exemplar of the
OO model (some in comp.object will strongly disagree, primarily because
SmallTalk cannot handle multi-dispatching, but I'm willing to settle.)
Now I grant that I know very little of SQL, in fact I may know less of
SQL than Mr. Cressey knows of SmallTalk, :-) but it seems to me that
comparing the two languages, as exemplars, is fundamentally unfair to
SQL simply because as I understand it, SQL is *not* turing complete,
Since "mAsterdam" brought up the ship metaphor... Imagine two companies, one makes engines, while the other makes whole boats (engine included.) Even if the first company's engines are superior to the engines made by the second company, is it really fair to compare which of the companies' products are the best for going out to sea? I think not.
In response to mAsterdam's call for a civilized discussion of the pros and cons of both theories, I can't say much because I only know one side of the argument. But I will be following the thread in the hopes of learning something. Received on Sat Feb 09 2008 - 16:32:13 CET