From: gregarican Date: 2007-03-21T11:10:04+09:00 Subject: Re: Object/Relational Mapping is the Vietnam of Computer Science On Mar 20, 9:44 pm, "gregarican" wrote: > On Mar 20, 8:52 pm, "Austin Ziegler" wrote: > > > > > > > On 3/20/07, Gary Wright wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote: > > > > Again, this is incorrect. Relational algera are about set > > > > operations on > > > > data. SQL models this badly, but it allows for better data combination > > > > than any single OO model will ever allow. > > > Just some random thoughts I had while reading this thread... > > > > I'm curious as to why query language development got hung up on SQL. > > > I've read a little bit about Tutorial D. Is SQL simply > > > another example of pre-mature standardization? > > > Possibly. I haven't actually read Tutorial D. > > > > What would a Ruby interface to the underlying database engine (indexed > > > tables) look like? Could it get closer to Tutorial D by bypassing the > > > standard technique of 'marshaling' requests into SQL statements? Is > > > the impedance mismatch between Ruby (or any other OO language) and > > > Codd's relational algebra too great to cross smoothly? > > > Again, possibly to either one. I don't honestly know. What I do know > > is that people are looking for solutions in the wrong side. If you > > have a object/relational impedance mismatch, fix your object model. > > > -austin > > -- > > Austin Ziegler * halosta...@gmail.com *http://www.halostatue.ca/ > > * aus...@halostatue.ca *http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/ > > * aus...@zieglers.ca > > I've worked with SQL databases for at least 12 years now. As an admin, > a report writer, a data analyst, you name it. The past 5 years I've > tried to become more of a developer and have approached both OO and > non-OO languages. I can agree with your assertions. Having checked out > strict OO languages like the various Smalltalks and their accompanying > OO databases I wound up loving the languages, with their elegance and > their power. But when I started looking at testing out the OO > databases they hook into I gave up with a bad taste in my mouth. They > were such a PITA to even install and configure, let along start > implementing as the back end of an application. The logic behind them > just didn't make sense. I would spend hours trying to model something > and just scrap it and spend a few minutes cranking out some SQL > statements to post against a relational database. Sure you can use > objects to solve problems constructing a user interface application. > But the underlying data itself is a different story. Perhaps there are > other OO databases out there that might shed some light I haven't seen > yet. But after years of working with databases I haven't discovered > anything that beats SQL.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The other thing about this thread is the subject. Awesome title. Perhaps Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt might look into adopting a data member :-)