Re: OO versus RDB
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 01:13:57 GMT
Message-ID: <pb_pg.5477$pu3.122921_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> I don't know how to define an 'adept' since AFAIAC the dust hasn't
> settled yet (although many claim to be adept, don't ask me why), but I
> would say that among the RM fans I've met, none of them denies that
> order has meaning, they just deny that one needs a notion of order to
> understand the RM (or RT, if I may call it that).
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 01:13:57 GMT
Message-ID: <pb_pg.5477$pu3.122921_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
paul c wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
> ...
>
>> I don't think I am a language purist, but I share that opinion. >> Now if we would be discussing paradigmatic behaviour: >> Why some OO adepts refuse to discuss other problem-solving >> at all, or why some RM adepts refuse to admit that order >> may have meaning, I'd accept paradigm as a useful concept. >> ...
>
> I don't know how to define an 'adept' since AFAIAC the dust hasn't
> settled yet (although many claim to be adept, don't ask me why), but I
> would say that among the RM fans I've met, none of them denies that
> order has meaning, they just deny that one needs a notion of order to
> understand the RM (or RT, if I may call it that).
In fact, order is so important relational proponents insist it must be explicit and based on an ordering of some attribute or attributes. After all, the available ordering attribute sets is the powerset of the ordered attributes, times the number of available orders for each attributes, times 2 to the power of the number of ordered attributes for ascending and descending.
Ordering by location is no more meaningful than ordering by value--it's just a lot less useful and a lot more fragile. Received on Mon Jul 03 2006 - 03:13:57 CEST