Re: Homoiconic relational programming language
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 16:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <b1e5d650-46bd-4825-b6c1-ae89d94cfe38_at_j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 8, 3:12 pm, Nilone <rea..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 6:18 pm, Sampo Syreeni <de..._at_iki.fi> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've been thinking about this a lot, originally because of the dreaded
> > "object-relational mismatch". What is it precisely that causes it?
>
> I found a lot of value in the work of William Cook and Bart Jacobs,
> the following papers in particular:
>
> On understanding data abstraction, revisited (William R. Cook, 2009)
Everybody on this group knows that among all other collections sets are special. Therefore the choice of a set for an object in W.Cook's latest paper is not very convincing. When comparing abstract data types and objects William interprets objects as characteristic function. OK, characteristic functions are defined on sets, this is why the choice of a set as an example is suspect. What is interpretation for other kinds of objects, e.g. free monoids (aka strings of characters), relations, etc? Or, maybe, objects always assume set structure so that instead of monoids we study semirings (sets of strings), relations as sets of tuples, and so on? Received on Fri Apr 09 2010 - 01:50:10 CEST