Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Robert Klemme Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 18:52:56 +0200 Lines: 78 Message-ID: <93aennFh48U1@mid.individual.net> References: <3Boxp.9547$HF3.5013@newsfe03.iad> <92r02mF24dU1@mid.individual.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: individual.net XKMWvpQxhlX7lk5LRlVTagnC+oxbx2DTBH1mO0DZ24/cL0UjY= Cancel-Lock: sha1:2My0+83OOKeikyENmC0N5Qi6ozo= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110515-0, 15.05.2011), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:4127 On 13.05.2011 12:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message bcb2-2e575deda114@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Robert Klemme wrote: > >> On 10 Mai, 03:50, Lawrence D'Oliveiro> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: >> >>> In message<92r02mF24...@mid.individual.net>, Robert Klemme wrote: >>> >>>> That's called an "inline view". >>> >>> The only reason there=92s a special term for it is because SQL doesn=92= t >>> treat tables/views as first-class objects. >> >> There are no objects in SQL. SQL is neither procedural nor object >> oriented. > > I didn=92t say it was =93object-oriented=94. In Computer Science, we us= e the term > =93first-class object=94 to refer to what you can do with objects, not = object- > orientation. That article speaks about programming languages. Since SQL isn't a=20 programming languages strictly speaking the definition does not apply -=20 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=20 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=20 in SQL or not - let alone in which ways SQL could be improved by making=20 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=92t 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=20 (plus a few things more) and the term "probably" leaves too much room=20 for personal taste and interpretation. Remember, the whole discussion started when you said that the term=20 "inline view" is only necessary because tables and views were no FCO in=20 SQL and you claimed that this deficiency could be remedied by bringing=20 more orthogonality into the language. Up to now neither I nor=20 apparently others (see Arved's recent posting) have been informed what=20 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=20 particular deficiencies you see in SQL and how they can be remedied by=20 adding orthogonality, I cannot take your talk about deficiencies serious.= Cheers robert PS: The term "inline view" is necessary simply to distinguish a view=20 defined in a query from a view defined in the data dictionary where it=20 is given a name. That's plain reasonable, and it happens all the time=20 with language (our cars have four "wheels" and a "spare wheel").=20 Nothing deficient or weird about that. We give different things=20 different names all the time so we can distinguish them. --=20 remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/