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

2012/4/27 Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
> 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.

The term object-oriented has different sense for programming languages
and in databases.

See a Stonebraker's idea "Object Relational Databases"

http://www.service-architecture.com/object-oriented-databases/articles/stonebrakers_dbms_matrix.html

Regards

Pavel Stehule

>
>> > 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
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy