Re: Object-relational impedence

topmind wrote:

> S Perryman wrote:

>>JOG wrote:

>>>A red herring as far as I'm concerned this Robert - after all RM is
>>>not an "inference engine" either. What I am questioning whether we
>>>need the concept of inheritance /whatsoever/. It does not exist in
>>>logic, it has no underlying theoretical justification, and is purely
>>>an ad hoc mechanism thrown together at xerox parc.

>>1. Devised at the NCC in Norway, not Xerox PARC.

>>2. Devised because of the influence of academic work on data types (Hoares'
>>"record" types) , and noticing things having related properties/behaviours
>>in simulation systems.

> "Types" tend to rely on similar hierarchical taxonomies (or at least
> DAG taxonomies) that inheritance does, and *suffer similar problems*.
> It is difficult to reduce most non-trivial real-world things into such
> trees/dags because they generally don't fit such, especially over the
> longer run. Even numbers, the poster child of "types", tend to get
> ugly if try to create a tree taxonomy with them. Feature sets are a
> more flexible and natural way to represent and manage variations-on-a-
> theme. (Disclaimer: I have no objective metrics to measure "more
> natural" and "flexible" at the moment.)

Your rantings :

1. pollute my pleasant experience of recent debate with people who actually know something about database fundamentals, and have contributions related to other areas
2. are off-topic rubbish
3. demonstrate a complete ignorance of anything relating to type theory in programming languages

So on all counts: on your way, little boy ... Received on Wed Mar 12 2008 - 16:34:56 CET