Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:53:55 -0300
Message-ID: <4a3e5793$0$23780$>

Keith H Duggar wrote:

> On Jun 18, 12:45 am, Bob Badour <> wrote:

>>Marshall wrote:
>>>On Jun 17, 9:06 am, Bob Badour <> 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.)
>>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.

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

Original text of this message