Account Options

  1. Sign in
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion TRM - Morbidity has set in, or not?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
David Cressey  
View profile  
 More options May 18 2006, 7:09 am
Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory
From: "David Cressey" <dcres...@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:09:02 GMT
Local: Thurs, May 18 2006 7:09 am
Subject: Re: TRM - Morbidity has set in, or not?

"Marshall" <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1147886349.702914.222780@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> To achieve the big wins, though, we need a programming language that
> uses the RM at its core, and that has support for physical
> independence.
> I am afraid that at this time this is just a wish.

I have a different take on this, slightly.

We need a programming language that has a data model as its core, and has
support for physical data independence.
The desired data model would incorporate all the benefits of the present
RDM, at the least.  such a data model would probably have to incorporate the
RDM as a sub model.

The programming language also needs a highly developed process model at its
core.  The object oriented process model provides a good starting place.

Here's where I would start:

Since the time OOP became popular, the design and construction of objects
has been revolutionized.  But OOP depends on two fundamental concepts, not
just one.  In an object oriented world, there are objects, and there are
messages.  The messaging scheme of languages ranging from Smalltalk to Java
is woefully inadequate.  There has been almost no fundamental advance here
in 30 years.

In order to build on the successes that OOP has acheived,  the messaging
scheme is going to have to go through a profound shift.  When people get
around to building a better messaging scheme,  they will discover that the
fundamental question is:  how can objects share data coherently?

This turns out to be the same question that database theory began working
on, back in 1970, when Codd published.  It's in a different guise,  but it's
the same question.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.