Re: too much OOP ?
- From: frebe <frebe73@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 03:09:22 -0800 (PST)
Currently one of the few sound theories to
backing up 4GL is relational algebra.
Huh, it was very unfortunate to all of us that RA was first used in 4GL. If
"relational people" did it in a 3GL with an elaborated types system then it
would have became just a decent part of mainstream OO.
I agree that mainstream SQL databases has a rather poor implementation
of RA. An open type system is very important for relational databases.
Unfortunately very few databases have it. But what stops "OO people"
from using RA in mainstream OO? If the "relational people" didn't do
it correct, we "OO people" still can.
There is nothing in RA that limits it to databases only.
Did somebody claim this? It is a pity that it is only store procedure
languages that has some form of RA built-in. Every decent programming
language should have native support for RA.
Databases will die sooner or later, RA will not.
I think we all hope for RA implementations (databases) that makes a
better implementation than current SQL databases?
Do you think that all developers
using SQL database are making a mistake? Would it be better if they
implemented the data management logic in their applications instead?
Or should they use some other kind of database?
They should not consider the target platform, unless absolutely necessary.
Already the mindset "we use SQL database" is as wrong as "we use AMD
processor." Database is a part of hardware platform.
Who's mindset are you talking about, mine? Regardless the mindset, do
you think it is a mistake to use SQL databases in applications for
accounting, invoicing, inventory management, etc? Would it be better
to use some other kind of database instead or implement the data
management logic in the application instead?
(AMD is a vendor, SQL is a name of a family of databases or a
standard. It would be more correct to compare AMD to Oracle or DB/2.)
//frebe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: too much OOP ?
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: too much OOP ?
- References:
- Re: too much OOP ?
- From: Daniel T.
- Re: too much OOP ?
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: too much OOP ?
- From: frebe
- Re: too much OOP ?
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: too much OOP ?
- From: frebe
- Re: too much OOP ?
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: too much OOP ?
- From: frebe
- Re: too much OOP ?
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: too much OOP ?
- From: frebe
- Re: too much OOP ?
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: too much OOP ?
- Prev by Date: Re: too much OOP ?
- Next by Date: Re: too much OOP ?
- Previous by thread: Re: too much OOP ?
- Next by thread: Re: too much OOP ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|