On 3/20/07, Gary Wright <gwtmp01 / mac.com> wrote: > > On Mar 20, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote: > > Again, this is incorrect. Relational algera are about set > > operations on > > data. SQL models this badly, but it allows for better data combination > > than any single OO model will ever allow. > Just some random thoughts I had while reading this thread... > > I'm curious as to why query language development got hung up on SQL. > I've read a little bit about Tutorial D. Is SQL simply > another example of pre-mature standardization? Possibly. I haven't actually read Tutorial D. > What would a Ruby interface to the underlying database engine (indexed > tables) look like? Could it get closer to Tutorial D by bypassing the > standard technique of 'marshaling' requests into SQL statements? Is > the impedance mismatch between Ruby (or any other OO language) and > Codd's relational algebra too great to cross smoothly? Again, possibly to either one. I don't honestly know. What I do know is that people are looking for solutions in the wrong side. If you have a object/relational impedance mismatch, fix your object model. -austin -- Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/ * austin / halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/ * austin / zieglers.ca