Re: Object oriented database

From: Walter Mitty <>
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 12:00:48 GMT
Message-ID: <QDgPk.2067$>

"Roy Hann" <specially_at_processed.almost.meat> wrote in message
> wrote:
>> The real question is probably whether non relational database users or
>> designers are even entitled to use the word 'database' when discussing
>> what they're doing[...].
> I for one would be very pleased to drop the word "database". It is so
> overloaded and widely misconstrued that it is much worse than useless.

I think it's still a useful enough word to keep it around. Plus we need a referent for news:comp.database.theory don't we?

How about if people began using 'object base' in place of 'object oriented database'. One of the driving forces behind the object oriented paradigm was supposedly to free up programmers from the tyranny of having to deal with data. 'Object base' would be so liberating for them. They get their persistent objects, and that's all they need.

Meanwhile, those of us who think that storing and sharing data is of the utmost importance can continue to work with our clunky old databases. Received on Sun Nov 02 2008 - 13:00:48 CET

Original text of this message