Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view

"Bernard Peek" <bap_at_alpha.shrdlu.com> wrote in message news:slrnevj1fm.58c.bap_at_alpha.shrdlu.com...
> On 2007-03-15, Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Bernard Peek wrote:
> >
> >> On 2007-03-14, Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>>The word "object" is essentially meaningless. It has no clear
definition
> >>>and gets used to mean a variety of things. Those who use it frequently
> >>>do so to impede communication.
> >>
> >> The word, in the context of object-oriented languages and databases,
seems
> >> to me to have precisely two meanings. One is the set of identifiable
things
> >> and the other is the set of computer-based models of identifiable
things.
> >
> > Huh?
>
> What part of that are you having a problem with?
>
> >
> >
> >> It does impede communication, but it's not for want of trying. I think
it's the
> >> universality of the concept that may be at the heart of the problem.
> >
> > Um, are you saying that if it means everything and anything then it
> > means nothing?
>
> Nope. But I've seen some smart people new to UNIX who can't seem to get
their
> head around the idea the everything is a file.
>
>

That's because it isn't an idea. It's a slogan. Received on Fri Mar 16 2007 - 13:58:39 CET