Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1335510352.28653.82.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS? (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
|
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: