Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:53:55 -0300
Message-ID: <4a3e5793$0$23780$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>>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?
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:53:55 -0300
Message-ID: <4a3e5793$0$23780$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Keith H Duggar wrote:
> 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
I agree. Doing a name-based lookup for example adds runtime overhead that a compiled relational language could address one time at compilation. Received on Sun Jun 21 2009 - 17:53:55 CEST