Re: Clean Object Class Design -- What is it?

bbadour_at_golden.net (Bob Badour) hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, bbadour_at_golden.net (Bob Badour) laughed madly, then wrote:

I know this is kind of a dead thread, but I hated to leave it hanging.

>> But, for that matter, I might find a case where I could use an array
>> to do database-like work and not need to go through SQL in a given
>> application. If it works, of course I'd use it. Or a linked list or
>> hashtable or whatever. At times, using a major database program would
>> just be overkill and the overall performance of my application would
>> be much worse than if I had taken the simpler approach.
>
>In your application, use whatever you need. If you do not need a DBMS,
>don't use one.
>
>If you need a DBMS, you need a relational DBMS regardless whether you
>realize or accept it.
>

I agree completely.

>> An existing database system, any of the major commercial ones, is an
>> attempt to fully implement SQL
>
>You are deluding yourself. The commercial strategy involves making
>sure the SQL standard considers the current implementation compliant
>without further development.
>
>

Agreed. I think I am treating SQL as a perfect expression of relational theory throughout here. Rather than SQL, I should say "some theoretical perfect implementation of relational theory".

>> Mapping a complete branch of
>> information theory to a practical working computer system is going to
>> be difficult, if not impossible, so shortcuts are taken.
>
>Shortcuts are taken because the programmers involved do not think
>through the consequences. The shortcuts actually make the task much
>more difficult, if not impossible.
>
>

Agreed. This was essentially what I was trying to get across.

>> It's not that the developers are 'bad', it's just practicality.
>
>The cause is not practicality. The cause is the poor quality of the
>dbms product. Until people drop this idiotic attitude that theory is
>impractical and start actually demanding quality from their vendors,
>they won't ever get sufficient physical independence to allow for full
>normalization. In the meantime, we all have to live with compromised
>integrity.
>

I agree with this.

In my opinion, it's the attempt to 'cut corners' which, ultimately, leaves implementation stalled and imperfect. Trying to 'partly support' the ideal model and at the same time violate the ideal model 'for practical reasons' leads to a failure to really support either.

I think anybody who has worked on a very large, long-term development project sees that as inevitable.

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
 
Particle and observation  -arise together-.  And even though we 
can only -observe- this at a quantum scale, the implication is 
unavoidable.  This is true of all reality.
 
 
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/