Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?

On Jun 18, 12:45 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 9:06 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>Does Java have no arrays or associative arrays?
>
> > Java has primitive arrays. They are sufficiently lame that
> > I don't use them much. They also aren't all that pretty
> > as far as the type system goes; Java array types are
> > covariant but of course array-element-assignment is
> > contravariant, so you can get (runtime) errors.
>
> > Java has a bajillion collection classes, and as such
> > things go, they're actually pretty good. (Incl. dictionaries.)
> > They are all class based. Java really, really wants
> > you to use classes. (The anthropomorphism there
> > is all in my phrasing; what I mean is that the language
> > design makes the use of classes easy and doesn't
> > provide much else to use.)
>
> > Marshall
>
> One could use a dictionary to implement name-based plain composition,
> though. Is that correct?

You probably already know this but C++ supports arrays and (with libraries) associative array. I've found them fairly useful when implementing some of the relational ideas I've learned from this newsgroup and the classic books.

Of course, they are no substitute for native relational language support.

KHD Received on Sun Jun 21 2009 - 06:11:31 CEST