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