Re: Object oriented database
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 13:44:46 -0300
Message-ID: <490c8783$0$5459$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>>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:
>>>
>>>>>>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?
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 13:44:46 -0300
Message-ID: <490c8783$0$5459$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Walter Mitty wrote:
> <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:
>>>
>>>>>>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?
<snip>
> 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.
Walter, the troll is an obvious fucking troll. He didn't come here to discuss theory. If you look at his first post here, he explicitly suggested doing away with all that 'useless theory'.
He's just an infantile jerk trying to yank our chains.
Please stop feeding him. Received on Sat Nov 01 2008 - 17:44:46 CET