Solving the Object -Relational impedance mismatch the other way

6 Comments

• Idiotic if you ask me.
  
  
  
  I do objects because the OO paradigm is better than the relational one for developing software.
  
  
  
  Adding relational stuff toa language would make reporing easier, granted, but it would not help at all with architecture.
  
  
  
  Non-Issue, totally.
  

• >Idiotic if you ask me.
  
  
  
  Did I ask you? ;)
  
  

• ::Did I ask you? ;)
  
  
  
  Yes, you did. You posted something and it asks for comments.
  
  
  
  Naturally logical thinking is required to see this as an invitation.
  

• I depends on who's invited, Thomas ;-)
  

• It's not wise to do this as it will create the same type of relations as there are in the relational model: relations between types (vs relations between entity types)
  
  
  
  A relation based on DATA INSIDE an object is what's needed and this is a SEMANTICAL relation, which means that the relation only exists for the object/functionality which interprets the data as a relation.
  
  
  
  You can do that already, easily, so why should it be part of a language?
  

• Because objects impose constraints in the way I can use my data that don't exist in the relational model.
  
  
  
  The same constraints that made hierarchical databases fail and relational database suceeed.
  
  
  
  Your semantical relations are a subset of all the existing relations. If can have the full relation set available, why would I want a subset of them?