From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS? |
Date: | 2012-04-27 07:05:52 |
Message-ID: | 1335510352.28653.82.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 19:27 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think having composite types and functions using them also belongs
> there.
I don't see that as particularly object-oriented. C has structs. But I
can see how it's somewhat "in the spirit of" OO.
> > Given all this, why do we still call postgres an object-relational
> > system (in the first sentence of our "About" page)?
>
> I think it's still a good mission statement of sorts, even if most
> people don't use all the features.
The reason why I brought this up is because it seems like we've been
moving steadily *away* from these concepts the entire time I've been
involved in postgres. I don't have that strong of an opinion on the
subject, but it seems disingenuous to use "object" as the first word in
the description.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-04-27 07:34:14 | Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS? |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2012-04-27 06:44:48 | Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS? |