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
 |
Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory, comp.object
From: S Perryman <q...@q.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:34:32 +0000
Local: Wed, Mar 12 2008 5:34 am
Subject: Re: Object-relational impedence
JOG wrote: 1. Devised at the NCC in Norway, not Xerox PARC. >>On 2008-03-08 21:39:37 -0600, JOG <j...@cs.nott.ac.uk> said: > A red herring as far as I'm concerned this Robert - after all RM is > not an "inference engine" either. What I am questioning whether we > need the concept of inheritance /whatsoever/. It does not exist in > logic, it has no underlying theoretical justification, and is purely > an ad hoc mechanism thrown together at xerox parc. 2. Devised because of the influence of academic work on data types (Hoares' So not really ad-hoc (thought went into providing the scheme) . > Is it not true that As a property acquisition/composition scheme, certainly. > inheritance has lost favour over the years - composition is generally > preferred, unless one is defining interfaces (and whether that should > still be called "inheritance" is open to debate). As a type substitutability mechanism, (sadly) no (Java, C# etc) . Regards, 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.
| |||||||||||||