Re: OO vs. RDB challenge

From: Alfredo Novoa (alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/16/05

  • Next message: Alfredo Novoa: "Re: OO vs. RDB challenge" 
    Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:16:53 +0100

    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:03:24 GMT, Rich MacDonald
    <rich@@clevercaboose.com> wrote:

    >I've actually studied the application of the relational model to some of
    >my problems and I can honestly say its nowhere near the "best possible
    >layer".

    Can you show any example?

    > I must admit that no existing OO language is the "best possible
    >layer" either, but they're better.

    Better for what?

    > Moving my OO language "behind the
    >constraints of the RDBMS" is an attractive idea in theory, but the tools
    >to do that are nowhere near good enough.

    They are good enough for that by far. Which tools do you refer?

    That is very easy with SQL Server 2005, Oracle, DB2, etc.

    >> Striking innovations often need a lot of time to be adopted. There are
    >> many old dogs that are not able to learn new tricks.
    >
    >Its not just a question of adoption.

    Of course. It is a question of education.

    > Deciding to adopt is often the
    >easiest part;

    Indeed, you have to learn the new aproaches first and here is where
    most programmers fail.

    >>>Graph "business logic complexity" on the x-axis and "implementation
    >>>complexity" on the y-axis. SQL is an exponentially rising function. OO
    >>>is less exponential.
    >>
    >> What do you mean with OO?
    >
    >A good OO language used to implement the business logic. Persistence
    >being trivial in comparison.

    Then you don't have a clue on what you are talking about.

    The implementation complexity when you use procedural OO languages
    grows exponentially compared to SQL.

    That's why OO languages are 3GLs and SQL is a 4GL.

    >> Many people here identify OO with the file processing and the network
    >> approaches which are exponential compared to SQL.
    >
    >Their problem, not mine.

    That is your problem too. It is evident that you are calling OO to the
    file processing and the network approaches. You want to manage the
    database directly from the application transversing pointer based
    structures using procedural code.

    >> You can try it on the paper. Costin's challenge is one example.
    >
    >When he first posed that problem on this ng some years ago it was simple
    >to solve with a 3rd object.

    Although if we ignore the problems with transactions and concurrence
    the procedural solution is horrible compared to SQL.

    > Now he has rewritten it as "implement an
    >RDBMS in some other language and show its as easy as using an RDBMS". Not
    >willing to play that game.

    Because you know that you can not win.

    >> I could post more complex challenges to show how the file processing
    >> and network approaches have exponential implementation complexity
    >> compared to the DBMS and relational approaches.
    >
    >Don't bother on my account.

    What an attitude!

    Although it is true that it does not worth a while to show that you
    are wrong because you proved that you don't deserve any credibility.

    >Sorry. Constraints between "rows", i.e., something the relational model
    >doesn't support without "devolving" the base model.

    That is bull***. Constraints between tuples are among the most
    frequent constraints in relational designs.

    This newsgroup can be quite depressing.

    >BTW, have you tried storing an arbitrary mathematical equation in an
    >rdbms?

    Yes, and RDBMS's are ideal for that.

    > Takes lots of little tables (the addition table, the subtraction
    >table, the multiplication table, you get the idea table...) and lots and
    >lots of joins.

    Of course not. Again you don't have a clue on what you are talking
    about. We only need a single and simple table.

    Chris Date wrote a recent article showing how the Relational Model is
    superior to the pointer based structures to represent trees.

    http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/1490192.htm

    Regards

  • Next message: Alfredo Novoa: "Re: OO vs. RDB challenge"
    • Quantcast