Re: Homoiconic relational programming language
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:25:27 -0300
Message-ID: <4bbe0380$0$12454$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> (First, sorry about my latest flood, it's been a while since I last
> read the group.)
>
> I've been thinking about this a lot, originally because of the dreaded
> "object-relational mismatch". What is it precisely that causes it? And
> I think I have at least a partial answer. The control and program
> flow, record at a time orientation of OO makes for irregular access
> across data types, whereas relational is all about controlled, breadth
> first structuring.
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:25:27 -0300
Message-ID: <4bbe0380$0$12454$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> On Mar 8, 1:14 pm, Nilone <rea..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Any thoughts, ideas, references - I'd like to hear them.
>
> (First, sorry about my latest flood, it's been a while since I last
> read the group.)
>
> I've been thinking about this a lot, originally because of the dreaded
> "object-relational mismatch". What is it precisely that causes it? And
> I think I have at least a partial answer. The control and program
> flow, record at a time orientation of OO makes for irregular access
> across data types, whereas relational is all about controlled, breadth
> first structuring.
I disagree. It is an algebraic structuring that biases neither toward breadth nor toward depth.
> The temporally linear control flow and the presence
> of uncontrolled side effects on individual records/objects is also
> very different from the set oriented, transaction view of the DB
> community.
What do you make of Date, Darwen and Lorentzos? Received on Thu Apr 08 2010 - 18:25:27 CEST