Re: the relational model of data objects *and* program objects

"Neo" <neo55592_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
 in message news:1113332155.364978.287800_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>> Given that such an environment exists whereby both data objects
>> and program objects are physically stored within the RDBMS
>> has anyone seen recently any emergent models that address both
>> these objects in a consistent manner?
>
> That ultimate model (whatever it might actually be) is ubiquitous and
> has existed forever. It is the model that the universe is based on. It
> is probably impossible / impractical to implement on any other hardware
> except that of the universe itself which is a combined db /
> multi-processor. Having said that, possibly the next closest model,
> albeit a very very distant 2nd, on single-processor type man-made
> computers might be the one used by XDb. I tried to explain it here for
> several years but nearly all the experts agreed that it didn't make
> sense or could possibly work.
>
>> Do you think it is important to address the issue that a model
>> of both the data objects and the program objects is required?
>
> If one wants to eventually implement systems more similar to the human
> mind, yes.

An interesting observation.

>> What obstacles face the conception of such a model?
>
> Bob, Alfredo, Lee, Gene, Alan, Hugo and even Codd, Date and Pascal ...
> to name a few :)

Codd is dead, and Date sells pedagogic literature based on his own notions of mathematical set theory and a model of relational data as it was immediately prior to Oracle (1979).

The rest of the above are simply "hangers on" and/or have some form of vested interest in the pedagogic gravy-train established by Date. Bob is not an obstacle, rather a rare form of usenet troll.

Now, who else is there? ;-)

BTW, thanks for the response.

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au Received on Wed Apr 13 2005 - 11:38:15 CEST