Re: General semantics

From: Erwin <e.smout_at_myonline.be>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f56931c6-aa29-4208-b758-afec3a45b6cc_at_p17g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>



On 22 mei, 00:20, Nilone <rea..._at_gmail.com> wrote:

> I would prefer to program in a pure relational model,

That is a tall order. The closest you can get to this ideal, as things are today, is Rel (and that's nowhere near industrial strength) and Muldis D (and that's nothing more than just a spec). I won't even mention my own project, which I believe to give better results from the perspective of "industrial strength", but which doesn't really facilitate "programming in a pure relational model", as you call it.

> but I must deal
> with both OOP classes and SQL tables, so I want to understand how the
> concepts and mechanisms fit together.

As things stand today, only in extremely ugly ways.

> Analyzing OOP in relational terms simply opens the way to apply
> relational thinking in existing OOP systems.

Dubious. If you can analyze OOP in relational terms, then that means that you understand relational terms, and that in turn means that you can already "apply relational thinking" to _just any_ kind of problem.

So it is not the "Analyzing OOP in relational terms" that opens up to "apply relational thinking in existing OOP systems". What DOES open up to that is merely to "understand relational thinking". Received on Fri May 21 2010 - 18:15:16 CDT

Original text of this message