Re: Object oriented database

On Nov 1, 3:22 pm, "Walter Mitty" <wami..._at_verizon.net> 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? 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'.
>
> An afterthought, after my last post.
>
> There have been dozens of object vs relational discussions in this newsgroup
> over the years.  They usually degenerate into a fruitless pissing contest
> after only a few replies back and forth.  It's possible that this discussion
> will generate some useful dialogue that the previous discussions did not.
> But most regulars don't expect that to happen.

This one is definitely a troll I'm afraid WM. Don't let him reel you in. Received on Sat Nov 01 2008 - 19:18:51 CET