Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!databs.enet.dec.com!ballou
From: ballou@databs.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: OODBs and PLs
Message-ID: <1991Feb6.091642@databs.enet.dec.com>
Date: 6 Feb 91 14:24:25 GMT
References: <1194@culhua.prg.ox.ac.uk>
Sender: newsdaemon@shlump.nac.dec.com
Reply-To: ballou@databs.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 26

In article <1194@culhua.prg.ox.ac.uk>, ajs@prg.ox.ac.uk (Adolfo Socorro)
writes:
|> In article <SCHULTZ.91Feb2120216@halley.est.3m.com> John Schultz writes:
|> 
|>     While embedding OODB calls in an 
|>     existing language would be ``seamless'' ...
|> 
|> I have to wholeheartedly disagree. If one is forced to be bilingual, and to
|> back and forth map data structures between computational systems, then the
|> integration can't be seamless. The field of database programming languages
|> tries to address this question; that is, to develop the technology that
avoids
|> the so-called impedance mismatch that results when two languages are merged
in
|> an ad-hoc fashion, with particular attention to database issues.

...and less attention to programming language features.  I think you missed the
real question. 

Rephrased:  Do computationally different models strictly require different
                    languages?

Nat

P.S. - most use 'impedance mismatch' as a complaint with the current rash
          of database programming languages (i.e., SQL, QUEL, etc.).