Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?

Bob Badour wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
>

>> On Jun 15, 12:38 am, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 12, 10:42 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Unfortunately Bob has been so effective at "cleansing" this NG it is
>>> difficult to get anything but D&D viewpoints here. Someone interested
>>> in a domain like CAD and interested in recursive data types would be
>>> viewed as an OO loving idiot by Bob and not last long here.  He
>>> attacks people that may actually have something interesting to say.

Is it that time again? ... haha. I hope it's clear when I do, that I don't have the conventional RM in mind. Only one little problem holds me back, I haven't come up with definitions as good as D&D Appendix A.

(That is one of the reasons I mention D&D so often and I suspect similar of some thinkers here. If you ask me, fifteen years ago the peer review in the main pubs like acm and ieee was a little too collegial, almost guild-like, suspect it's worse now, too much reading, writing and incestuous referencing and not enough original thought. At least it's got to be true that most writers just cannot remove their pet programming language from their heads when they get into RT. I'd bet that John Stuart Mill and similar natural philosophers from a couple of centuries ago could get to the bones of this subject right quick once they got the modern lingo down.)

BTW, all locks are "writes". Makes me wonder why Jim Gray didn't try to express them algebraically, maybe he wasn't really into logic.

> Granted, I would tend more for normal referential integrity and the
> close operation.
>
Received on Wed Jun 17 2009 - 00:15:11 CEST