XPost: comp.databases.rdb, comp.databases.revelation, comp.databases.object
From: bbadour@golden.net
"Corey Brown" wrote in message
news:i6KBb.11541$4t2.8346@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Alfredo Novoa" wrote in message
> news:e4330f45.0312100321.119aa1c0@posting.google.com...
> > "Corey Brown" wrote in message
> news:<8FlBb.6497
> >
> > > > > Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
> > > > > pointer to physical storage location.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's all.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is this a nonsense competition?
> > >
> > > Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is
> > > nonsense.
> >
> > Because it is evident for anybody with a grasp on data management.
>
> This is exactly the type of answer that I would expect from somebody
> like Bob B. Why must you guys always answer direct questions with
> inappropriate remarks like this. If you have the knowledge and the
> ability to express that knowledge to others, why don't you take a
> few minutes out to lay down some cold hard facts, instead of just
> telling us to go educate ourselves? Why can't you step up to the
> role of teacher and start explaining why you "think" one technology
> is better than another?
With all due respect, neither I nor Alfredo owe you or anyone else an
elementary education in the fundamentals of your practice. You, on the other
hand, have a responsibility to educate yourself in those fundamentals.
> > > I am also pretty sure
> > > that ODBM
> > > systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.
> >
> > And I am pretty sure that SQL DBMSes use pointers internally.
>
> So your point about network databases being obsolete and discredited
> doesn't count here? If using internal pointers is so foul, why doesn't
> it
> apply to your last statement?
Your remarks betray ignorance of data management fundamentals and a profound
confusion between the logical and the physical. A physical pointer is
perfectly appropriate at the physical level provided no user ever interacts
with it directly at the logical level.
> I know, I know go educate yourself.
In your case: Very sound advice.
> > > Yes object databases are relatives of "Network Model" databases,
> but
> > > so what!
> >
> > So they are based in a primitive obsolete and discredited approach.
> > That's all.
>
> So what! There are many many examples of technologies that have
> been eclipsed by better designs.
ODBMS is not a new design and has eclipsed nothing. Only an ignoramus such
as yourself could fail to recognize those facts.
> > > There are certain types of applications that can benefit from
> > > the
> > > use of object database systems.
> >
> > Perhaps in very special circumstances when the flaws of the current
> > SQL DBMSes are more important than the network model inherent flaws,
> > and the flaws of the concrete OODBMS implementations.
>
> I don't think the circumstances are all that special.
Since you base your conclusions on ignorance, I fail to see why anyone
should care what you think.
> > But you need a good knowledge on the fundamental to decide when to use
> > one tool or other appropiately, and the kind of nonsenses we can read
> > here don't help.
>
> Please see my comment above. It doesn't do anybody any good if you're
> just going to keep telling people how "misinformed" they are. Step up
to
> the plate and start transfering your knowledge to the people in the
> trenches.
Fuck you, you lazy, ignorant freeloader. I paid for my education. Go pay for
your own.
[remainder of demanding, ignorant nonsense snipped]
plonk
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
