Re: Objects and Relations

Walt wrote:

> "David BL" <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1170723701.183064.263580_at_h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> 

>>I note that systems based on RM provide the means to manipulate the RM
>>state. So it doesn't seem quite right to say that RM is about
>>passive state and OO is about active state. Remember as well that
>>most objects don't host their own threads and therefore are passive
>>(meaning they only do things when a thread calls their methods).
>>
>>I claim that the distinction between OO and relational has a lot to do
>>with the question of whether entities are inside or outside the
>>abstract computational machine, noting that 1) secondary storage is
>>part of the machine so persistence has nothing to do with it, and 2)
>>at the system level both relational and OO based approaches are
>>"active" so that has nothing to do with it either.

I find the above lacks insight in a profound way. The RM is a formalism that systematically applies predicate logic to the task of managing data. OO is an ad hoc computational model based on an arbitrary set of features useful for creating large unpredictable state machines out of small predictable state machines.

The distinctions are clear, require no sloppy use or redefinition of well-defined terms, and exist quite independent of the fantastic ghosts of David's imagining.

Both Kenneth and David are self-aggrandizing ignorants blowing so much hot air. Received on Sun Feb 18 2007 - 15:45:20 CET