Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #4127

Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions

Show all headers | View raw

On 13.05.2011 12:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<dddba9e2-7e37-4fa4-
> bcb2-2e575deda114@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
>> On 10 Mai, 03:50, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
>> central.gen.new_zealand>  wrote:
>>
>>> In message<92r02mF24...@mid.individual.net>, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's called an "inline view".
>>>
>>> The only reason there’s a special term for it is because SQL doesn’t
>>> treat tables/views as first-class objects.
>>
>> There are no objects in SQL.  SQL is neither procedural nor object
>> oriented.
>
> I didn’t say it was “object-oriented”. In Computer Science, we use the term
> “first-class object” to refer to what you can do with objects, not object-
> orientation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_class_object>.

That article speaks about programming languages.  Since SQL isn't a 
programming languages strictly speaking the definition does not apply - 
or at least it has to be applied with a large grain of salt.

For example, since SQL does not have variables, you can never store 
anything there - hence there can be no first class objects at all in SQL.

You would have to update the term "FCO" for application in a declarative 
language as SQL before we can even discuss about whether there are FCOs 
in SQL or not - let alone in which ways SQL could be improved by making 
tables and views FCOs.

>> It is a declarative language implementing relational
>> algebra.
>
> If it DID implement proper relational algebra as it is mathematically
> defined, we wouldn’t have this problem.

I won't debate whether SQL does or does not implement relational algebra 
properly because obviously it does implement a reasonable subset of it 
(plus a few things more) and the term "probably" leaves too much room 
for personal taste and interpretation.

Remember, the whole discussion started when you said that the term 
"inline view" is only necessary because tables and views were no FCO in 
SQL and you claimed that this deficiency could be remedied by bringing 
more orthogonality into the language.  Up to now neither I nor 
apparently others (see Arved's recent posting) have been informed what 
it is that you find deficient and want to change about SQL.

Where's the beef?  As long as you don't deliver and tell us which 
particular deficiencies you see in SQL and how they can be remedied by 
adding orthogonality, I cannot take your talk about deficiencies serious.

Cheers

	robert


PS: The term "inline view" is necessary simply to distinguish a view 
defined in a query from a view defined in the data dictionary where it 
is given a name.  That's plain reasonable, and it happens all the time 
with language (our cars have four "wheels" and a "spare wheel"). 
Nothing deficient or weird about that.  We give different things 
different names all the time so we can distinguish them.

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl@foo.com> - 2011-05-07 16:13 -0700
  Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-08 14:00 +1200
    Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-05-08 13:08 +0200
      Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-09 00:01 +1200
        Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-08 08:08 -0400
  Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-08 01:02 -0300
    Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-05-08 13:03 +0200
      Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-08 11:14 -0300
        Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-05-08 23:37 +0200
    Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl@foo.com> - 2011-05-08 16:06 -0700
      Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-05-09 22:10 +0200
        Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-10 13:50 +1200
          Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-05-10 00:06 -0700
            Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-13 22:55 +1200
              Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-05-15 18:52 +0200
          Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-10 06:35 -0300
            Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-13 22:57 +1200
              Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-13 07:45 -0400
              Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-15 13:09 -0300
                Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-05-15 18:56 +0200
  Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-05-07 23:32 -0700
    Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-05-07 23:36 -0700
      Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-08 20:43 +1200
        Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-05-09 01:27 -0700
  Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-08 07:45 -0400

csiph-web