Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:26:16 GMT
Message-ID: <c4xLh.12288$PV3.127087_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>Marshall schrieb:
>>
>>>On Mar 18, 6:04 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Drago Ganic wrote:
>>
>>>>>P.S.: I personally differentiate between code and data. To me data is like
>>>>>mass in physics. It is static and has structure. I move it around, destroy
>>>>>it etc.
>>>>
>>>>I suggest you find a way to check out the standard vocabularies. One can
>>>>move code, and in fact "code motion" is an important concept. One can
>>>>destroy it, create it etc. While code and data have very different
>>>>meanings, the above nonsense is just nonsense.
>>
>>>Amplifying:
>>
>>>All code is data. An unparsed Fortran source file is data. Code
>>>compiled into Java bytecodes is data. An x86 object file,
>>>a PowerPC executable, an abstract syntax tree: all are data.
>>
>>No, code and data are fundamentally different. This difference is
>>analogous to the difference between references and objects (identities
>>and entities).
>>Storing code and data in ordinary files is only an
>>implementation issue (rather bad solution by the way).
>>
>>RM does not use such a thing as code or reference or identity or any
>>other representation/access means and hence this difference between code
>>and data is not important (it does not exist actually). Yet it makes our
>>life very difficult and is the cause of serious problems in data modelling.
>>
>>>Marshall
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:26:16 GMT
Message-ID: <c4xLh.12288$PV3.127087_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
JOG wrote:
> On Mar 19, 10:07 am, Alexandr Savinov <s..._at_host.com> wrote: >
>>Marshall schrieb:
>>
>>>On Mar 18, 6:04 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Drago Ganic wrote:
>>
>>>>>P.S.: I personally differentiate between code and data. To me data is like
>>>>>mass in physics. It is static and has structure. I move it around, destroy
>>>>>it etc.
>>>>
>>>>I suggest you find a way to check out the standard vocabularies. One can
>>>>move code, and in fact "code motion" is an important concept. One can
>>>>destroy it, create it etc. While code and data have very different
>>>>meanings, the above nonsense is just nonsense.
>>
>>>Amplifying:
>>
>>>All code is data. An unparsed Fortran source file is data. Code
>>>compiled into Java bytecodes is data. An x86 object file,
>>>a PowerPC executable, an abstract syntax tree: all are data.
>>
>>No, code and data are fundamentally different. This difference is
>>analogous to the difference between references and objects (identities
>>and entities).
> > Why would you even put your arguments that way? You know most on cdt > would wholly disagree that identity exists outside of attributes. You > appear stuck in thinking of wrapped up 'entities' with 'links' between > them, as though those two things are somehow different constructs. The > simple "is married to/marriage" example surely shows that distinction > is blurry /at best/. >
>>Storing code and data in ordinary files is only an
>>implementation issue (rather bad solution by the way).
>>
>>RM does not use such a thing as code or reference or identity or any
>>other representation/access means and hence this difference between code
>>and data is not important (it does not exist actually). Yet it makes our
>>life very difficult and is the cause of serious problems in data modelling.
>>
>>>Marshall
Why would you consider a Savinov post worthy of reply? Received on Mon Mar 19 2007 - 15:26:16 CET