Re: Three Kinds of Logical Trees

Marshall Spight wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> > Marshall Spight wrote:

only time for one of the topics

> > ...
> > > Any time I see two language
> > > features, and I have to have both of them, and one is a superset
> > > of the other, I figure it makes sense to put the larger one in,
> > > and define the smaller one in terms of the larger. Roughly speaking.
> >
> > Funny, but that is precisely why I advocate for a graph model over a
> > strictly relational model. There is no practical problem of which I am
> > aware in including set operations along with a graph model.
>
> But since the reverse is also true,

but didn't you start out trying to figure out how to minimally extend the relational model to handle graphs or something like that?

> and the relational model is simpler,

Perhaps it is theoretically simpler, which translates to simplicity for the lower level software, but I have never seen it be simpler in practice for building applications. "Simpler" for whom?

> that tends in favor of the relational model as the
> design choice.

My experience related to my and my teams' productivity with (flawed) implementations of each, tells me otherwise (by orders of magnitude in dollars). Admittedly, there are trade-offs and there were more differences than relational vs graph models, such as 3VL vs 2VL, strong vs. weak typing, etc.

--dawn Received on Tue Jul 26 2005 - 17:47:07 CEST