Re: EAV (Re: Object-relational impedence)

On Mar 29, 2:58 pm, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail..._at_dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:14:49 GMT, David Cressey wrote:
> > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail..._at_dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
> >news:e5lufueeu155.t1s8vlmxjhpt.dlg_at_40tude.net...
>
> >> It is interesting to see people reinventing the wheel (class). The set of
> >> "all possible widgets having attributes T, U, V" is a class.
>
> > The pattern of "generalization-specialization" predates both the relational
> > data model and the object oriented paradigm. Neither one of them really
> > derived that pattern from the other. There is undoubtedly a common
> > intellectual ancestor, but you might have to go back centuries to find it.
>
> Yes. That by the way implies that neither is a paradigm in that respect.
> "Class" is just an implementation of the pattern, i.e.
>
> 1. how could I describe a set of similar types? (Similarity is defined in
> terms of behavior.)
Similarity = behavior ???
Congratulations here is the definition number 8687634974340834 for behavior.

> 2. can I have make its closure another type? (This gives polymorphism)
>
> The same steps would apply to relations. So generic relational programming
> (if that thing will ever happen) would deal with classes of relations
> represented by relations.
Classes = Relations ??? BS...

Classes are way too much of an obscure programming concept to be equated with the clear mathematical construct that a relation is. However in the realm of OO sloppy thinkinh I stopped being surprised how sloppyness becomes a synonym for knowledge.

> Regards,
> Dmitry A. Kazakovhttp://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
Received on Sun Mar 30 2008 - 04:35:18 CEST