Re: OO vs. RDB challenge
From: Costin Cozianu (c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/29/05
- Next message: frebe: "Re: OO vs. RDB challenge"
- Previous message: Alfredo Novoa: "Re: OO vs. RDB challenge"
- In reply to: Dmitry A. Kazakov: "Re: OO vs. RDB challenge"
- Next in thread: Rich MacDonald: "Re: OO vs. RDB challenge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:21:58 -0800
Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2005 05:31:00 -0800, frebe wrote:
>
>
>>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>
>>>Example: you buy Windows XP to play say Splinter Cell. You are quite happy
>>>
>>>>I think SQL (or something
>>>>similar) is the best choice for many enterprise applications. You want
>>>>low-level interfaces like Map and List.
>>>
>>>I don't see how column, table, tuple are higher level ones.
>>
>>Then you need to study RDBMS a little bit more.
>>
>>
>>>To me the
>>>issues of concurrency, invariants and constraints are quite orthogonal.
>>>Let's separate (1) queries (2) caching (3) concurrency and (4) relations.
>>>1..3 is fully applicable to lists and maps.
>>
>>Queries is not about finding a value in a hashmap using the id, or
>>traversing an array to find the matching object. This kind of arguments
>>just show that you have almost no knowledge at all about databases.
>>
>>
>>>So what makes abstract relations higher level than abstract maps?
>>
>>Buy a book about databases and do some studying.
>
>
> I will, but you know, I am still undecided. So far I saw neither Alfredo's
> SQL code for power set challenge, though I posted mine. Nor I saw your
> solution for dining philosophers in SQL (supposed to be an ultimate
> language for parallel computing. I can post a "low-level" code if you
> want.) To ask Costin would be trolling as he has many times explained...
>
Of course it would be trolling big time, as you both misconstrue the
opposite's party argument ("ultimate language for parallel computing"
(sic!)), and also construct such an brain-dead non-argument.
In case you have not noticed, SQL is not Turing complete, so it won't be
able to bring peace to the world, feed the poor and heal the sick. Move on.
- Next message: frebe: "Re: OO vs. RDB challenge"
- Previous message: Alfredo Novoa: "Re: OO vs. RDB challenge"
- In reply to: Dmitry A. Kazakov: "Re: OO vs. RDB challenge"
- Next in thread: Rich MacDonald: "Re: OO vs. RDB challenge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|