Re: Object oriented database
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:19:07 GMT
Message-ID: <Lr_Ok.1979$225.553_at_nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
<patrick61z_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb02c2b3-7785-425f-b2b4-1f9add34a9b6_at_z18g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 1, 9:05 am, "Walter Mitty" <wami..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
>> <patrick..._at_yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:ce67d135-a407-4097-9314-ac7d1e2ec5f0_at_z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Oct 31, 12:10 pm, Eric <Eric.Ane..._at_gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Oct 31, 12:36 am, mrto..._at_tpg.com.au wrote: >> [Quoted] >> >> > I am looking for people who have an interest in object oriented >> >> > databases, primarily to share ideas or to find out end-user >> >> >> That would be an exiting topic if there was an OO data model. >> >> Unfortunately, that still does not exists. IMHO, relational theory >> >> does not contradict any OO concepts and it would be possible to build >> >> a truly relational (not SQL of course) database that would also be an >> >> OODB but current OO database trends (since the late 80s) are flawed >> >> implementations because they are not based on any data model. >> >> >> Or do you mean to imply you are building an OODB that conforms to the >> >> relational data model? That would be really, really exiting but I am a >> >> skeptic. I think this will happen but it is too early. Maybe in >> >> another 10 years... >> >> >> Eric >> >> > There IS an OO datamodel. Its exciting and new. You typically use it >> > with the keywords 'new' and 'delete'. Otherwise they just become part >> > of your programming language. You can make them remember things. Its >> > fucking awesome. >> >> This is satire, right? >
> I take it this has been a pretty stuffy group? I know all about the
> 'read before you post' stuff, but I'm getting the feeling that theres
> someone I must pay homeage to before posting. I hope its not that
> fabian fellow.
>
> Does anyone think theres a need for a 'non relational' theory
> newsgroup? Its probably sort of silly for a newb like myself to be
> suggesting this, but its not like I've never read any object vs
> relational 'discussions' on the web before. Honestly, there could be a
> real market for a place to discuss pie in the sky database stuff that
> isn't composed only of relational algebra which I have trouble reading
> anyways because I've never been good at math.
>
> Since this is a big 8 newsgroup, I'd be happy to start an RFD about
> this, although maybe it would be worth it for one of the elite to
> consider a diversionary newsgroup for riffraff like myself. To any one
> of the elite rdbms purists, would something like
> comp.databases.theory.heresy be suitable to you? It would probably
> draw all the pick programmers and you guys could then point your
> fingers and go 'tisk tisk'.
I'm not qualified to speak to the question of whether this newsgroup is or is not suitable for discussions of alternatives to relational databases. I'll let other regulars deal with that. If you really intended "new" and "delete" to be taken seriously as an awesome leap forward, then there's something I'm missing about your post. I didn't mean to be flip when I suggested it was satire.
Pascal had "new" and "delete" back in 1970, and I don't know how the OO equivalent operations differ from the Pascal versions. Lisp, which is even older than Pascal, had something that's arguably better than New and Delete. It's called automatic garbage collection. That got resurrected into the world of OO languages with Java, right? Received on Sat Nov 01 2008 - 16:19:07 CET