Re: Object oriented database

On Nov 1, 11:44 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Walter Mitty wrote:
> > <patrick..._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.

Sorry if I said somewhere that 'theory was useless,' as soon as I find that post, I'll try to clarify my point. Received on Sat Nov 01 2008 - 18:02:03 CET