Re: Objects and Relations

From: David BL <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au>
Date: 26 Feb 2007 05:36:21 -0800
Message-ID: <1172496981.435484.247380_at_j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>


On Feb 26, 7:52 pm, "Alfredo Novoa" <alfred..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 feb, 03:40, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > In OO, a thing like an image can be regarded as an Abstract Data Type
> > (ADT).
>
> Exactly the same as with the RM!
>
> Please do your homework.

A strawman then an insult.

> Loosely speaking, relational programming is OO and a lot more.

Rubbish. RM+RA isn't even Turing complete.

> >RM doesn't have an exclusive stake on the representation or
> > management of data.
>
> But it has an exclusive stake on being the best way to manage data.

It's strange how so many on this NG have extrapolated RM+RA's capabilities beyond the storage of facts about things as typical for business applications. Where is the evidence for such extrapolation?

[snip] Received on Mon Feb 26 2007 - 14:36:21 CET

Original text of this message