Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:07:25 -0300
Message-ID: <4a2e88bf$0$23763$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> ...
>
>
> This is very helpful in that I now know that there is no point
> in looking for OO concepts, since they are not present. I suppose
> the corollary is that I'll have to settle for what functionality
> I can get, and instead be a bit economic about the efforts to
> obtain what OO functionality or emulations I want; most of the
> efforts will be futile.
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:07:25 -0300
Message-ID: <4a2e88bf$0$23763$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
dr.coffee1_at_gmail.com wrote:
> On 9 Jun, 17:20, Bernard Peek <b..._at_shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
>>In message >><4062e85f-4566-4111-903b-ad9efb8be..._at_y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, >>dr.coff..._at_gmail.com writes >> >>>How do OO class concepts map to SQL table concepts? >> >>The answer to that is "badly."
>
> ...
>
>>We aren't going to be able to give you a crib-sheet that maps the >>concepts in the two paradigms. Lots of very bright people have been >>trying to do that for a long while and they haven't succeeded.
>
> This is very helpful in that I now know that there is no point
> in looking for OO concepts, since they are not present. I suppose
> the corollary is that I'll have to settle for what functionality
> I can get, and instead be a bit economic about the efforts to
> obtain what OO functionality or emulations I want; most of the
> efforts will be futile.
Not "futile". "Counter-productive". Crippling a higher-level abstraction down to the level of a relatively primitive computational model is not the brightest idea. Received on Tue Jun 09 2009 - 18:07:25 CEST