Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:32:18 -0300
Message-ID: <4a2ee2f5$0$23770$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
>
> Think 'class' ~ 'relation' (table)
>
> Some people in this newsgroup believe that the relational model
> is sacred, its inventor Codd was a holy man, and a guy called Date
> who has written a bunch of popular books on the subject is his
> replacement on earth.
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:32:18 -0300
Message-ID: <4a2ee2f5$0$23770$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
none Reinier Post wrote:
>>>>In my first post: >>> >>>>"I have a problem with wrapping my mind into the 'right' wrinkles." >>> >>>>"The [system] would be almost trivial to implement in an >>>>object-oriented context [...], >>>>but I don't see how to come up with a table-based database >>>>design."
>
>
> Think 'class' ~ 'relation' (table)
But that would not only be a blunder but a great blunder.
>>>>I ask the same question: How is SQL different and similar >>>>to what I already know. >>> >>>In ways you can not tell if you do not go through a self learning >>>process of education in database concepts. If you believe this is not >>>necessary and OO concepts are sufficient to understand database theory >>>then it will be difficult to help you.
>
> Some people in this newsgroup believe that the relational model
> is sacred, its inventor Codd was a holy man, and a guy called Date
> who has written a bunch of popular books on the subject is his
> replacement on earth.
You are an idiot if that is what you honestly believe. Received on Wed Jun 10 2009 - 00:32:18 CEST