Path: text.usenetserver.com!out02a.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!postnews.google.com!t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: frebe Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory,comp.object Subject: Re: Object-relational impedence Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 25 Message-ID: <8751b5f5-0c9a-4968-a6b9-d6e189e30a5e@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> References: <0cd61579-0f26-422c-9aec-908ffdea59ff@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <2008030501100188124-unclebob@objectmentorcom> <173rn7vmv6alc.d8yy5f0qqmd0.dlg@40tude.net> <1i7hprcoy3j63.2c2zgpld4s2b$.dlg@40tude.net> <2008030600401818024-unclebob@objectmentorcom> <859392b9-4534-4455-8802-173fbaa16afa@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <2008031020470551816-unclebob@objectmentorcom> <83187186-dcda-4d01-a3df-ce2c09875713@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <200803112125087826-unclebob@objectmentorcom> <70e4f527-97dd-4890-a7e9-998ba3938df0@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <2008031312402277633-unclebob@objectmentorcom> NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.225.43.123 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1205471860 27147 127.0.0.1 (14 Mar 2008 05:17:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:17:40 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.225.43.123; posting-account=ImyNiAoAAABY2J3BGqtYHyHC5Dgaonpv User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: usenetserver.com comp.databases.theory:170791 comp.object:265052 X-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:17:40 EST (text.usenetserver.com) On 13 Mar, 18:40, Robert Martin wrote: > The real point of that remark was that the user of a tool is at a > higher level of abstraction than the tool itself. =A0SQL is a tool. =A0ORM= s > are tools that use SQL to get their job done, just like compilers use > assembly to get their job done. =A0In that sense ORMs live at a higher > level of abstraction than SQL. Lets have an example: There are many "compiler" products translating from a high-level language like ADA to a low-level language like C, instead of translating to machine code directly. What if someone wrote a "compiler" translating C source code to ADA source code, would that make C more high level than ADA? Hardly? The existance of a product translating from language A to language B doesn't say anything about the levels of A and B. > The members of c.d.t. might respond negatively to that idea because > they see SQL as a better vehicle to do the job that the ORM is trying > to do. That's fine, but does not change the fact that the ORM is using > SQL as an implementation language. If a RDBMS product is implemented using an OOPL, does that make relational algebra more high level than OO? //frebe