Re: Object-relational impedence
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:25:26 -0400
Message-ID: <47d02906$0$4057$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
>
>
>
> - it maps (almost) 1 to 1 to machine code
> - the primitive operations are very primitive
> - the facilities for combining primitives are crude
> - hence doing anything non-trivial takes lots of primitives
> - not portable between architectures
>
> are any of those relevent to your statement?
>
> so...
> just as assmbler "mismatches" objects
> so objects "mismatch" relations
>
> so you are saying objects are too low a level of abstraction?
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:25:26 -0400
Message-ID: <47d02906$0$4057$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Nick Keighley 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
> - the primitive operations are very primitive
> - the facilities for combining primitives are crude
> - hence doing anything non-trivial takes lots of primitives
> - not portable between architectures
>
> are any of those relevent to your statement?
>
> so...
> just as assmbler "mismatches" objects
> so objects "mismatch" relations
>
> so you are saying objects are too low a level of abstraction?
Indeed. Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 18:25:26 CET