Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Date: 2012-04-28 19:16:08
Message-ID: 1335640568.28653.89.camel@jdavis (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 12:48 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Um, you missed the really big one:
> 
> (4) User-definable Type system, with context-sensitive operators and
> functions.
> 
> It's our type system which makes us an ORDBMS.  The other things are
> largely decorations.

Again, I don't see what is particularly "object-oriented" about PG's
extensible type system.

I can see that "object-oriented" has been redefined so much that it can
mean anything. So, I suppose it doesn't hurt to leave it in the
description.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis




In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Alejandro CarrilloDate: 2012-04-28 22:35:11
Subject: Re: Próximo evento de Comunidades PostgreSQL
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2012-04-27 07:34:14
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group