Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!ogccse!blake!uw-beaver!tektronix!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekcae!moiram
From: moiram@tekcae.CAX.TEK.COM (Moira Mallison)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Seamless integration of type systems
Message-ID: <3053@tekcae.CAX.TEK.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 89 18:17:18 GMT
References: <10931@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Reply-To: moiram@tekcae.CAX.TEK.COM (Moira Mallison)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 22

In article <10931@boulder.Colorado.EDU> dennis@boulder.colorado.edu () writes:
>I would like to challenge the idea that seamless integration
>of a programming language with the database (aka persistent programming 
>languages) is a good idea.  

Dennis provides a counter-example to defend the above statement.  But
because it is not a good fit for your project doesn't mean it is 
not a good idea. 

>For our purpose, we have some small evidence that relational
>models work better (in a best-fit sense) than OO models.

At least Dennis qualifies his statement here.  It is not the
object-oriented defenders who are claiming to have a universal
answer here.  OODBMS's do not claim to be all things to all people.
There are clearly applications for which the relational model
works well.  There are also clearly applications which are
awkward and cumbersome when constrained to a RDBMS implementation.


Moira Mallison
CAX Data Management