Re: Object-relational impedence

On Mar 6, 12:09 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Mar, 23:37, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > David Cressey wrote:
> > > "Bob Badour" <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > >news:47cc383f$0$4041$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net...
> > >>It's pretty obvious to me: object-relational mismatch is to relations as
> > >>assembler-object mismatch is to objects.
>
> > > I didn't get this comment. Now that someone else has flagged it as a
> > > keeper, I feel the need to ask for an explanation.
>
> > What do you know about assembler?
>
> - it maps (almost) 1 to 1 to machine code
What is mapping 1:1 between machine code and assembler. Tis the first time I hear somebody establishing cardinality between 2 languages. What a bunch of crap.

> - the primitive operations are very primitive
Uh... I was afraid that primitive operations would be secondary

> - the facilities for combining primitives are crude
? nonsense

> - hence doing anything non-trivial takes lots of primitives
What does that mean?

> - not portable between architectures
>
> are any of those relevent to your statement?
What is relevant is the fact that you have only no clue how assembler works...

> so...
> just as assmbler "mismatches" objects
> so objects "mismatch" relations
What the hell does that mean...

Object/assembler is a sloppy concept compared to a language Object/Relation is a sloppy concept compared to a mathematical construct

And you say both are equal...According to what?

> so you are saying objects are too low a level of abstraction?
*Objects* are just vague concept for sloppy thinkers to put their ignorant teeth onto...

> Nick Keighley
Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 14:57:58 CET