On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Bill Moran <wmoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Reading between the lines, the original question was: "This guy is > making my life difficult, and he claims it's for this reason." I read the question more as "Did we hire some database contractor who has no idea what he's doing?" If the contractor is trying to sell him on something, giving the reason that "it's that way because PG is object-oriented," then this: > Is PostgreSQL object-oriented? That's like asking if > those tires are gasoline or battery powered. is the answer to his question. I.E. it sounds like the contractor either doesn't want to explain an unusual design decision, or is clueless, and either way is trying to use buzzwords to shut the client up. I think the OP was asking us whether the contractor's logic made sense--to make sure it really isn't just "that's how things are done with PG" before calling him on it. In my opinion, it sounds like the OP should have a long talk with his contractor about what exactly is going on, to figure out the real reason behind these design decisions. Maybe they're good design decisions (we can't tell and weren't asked) but it doesn't sound like the contractor is telling the whole story. On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Bill Moran <wmoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In response to Eric Schwarzenbach <subscriber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> Bill Moran wrote: >> > In response to "Robert Pepersack" <RPepersack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > >> > >> >> I read the document on array data types. Do they have anything at all to do with PostgreSQL being "object-oriented"? >> >> >> > >> > If you want to be pedantic, not really. Technically, Postgres isn't >> > "object-oriented", it's "object-relational". >> > >> > But then again, C isn't considered to be object-oriented, but I've >> > seen some very clever object-oriented code written in C. Of course, >> > there are languages that have object-oriented syntax as more of the >> > core of their design, which usually is what's meant by saying that >> > a language is "object-oriented". >> > >> > Going from that statement, you could argue that PostgreSQL is very >> > object-oriented. Arrays are the least of the objecty features in >> > the system: stored procedures, triggers and table inheritance are >> > much more objectivy than arrays, although arrays could arguably >> > be a part of Postgres' object friendliness. >> > >> > Looking for a more concise, more to-the-point answer? Ask a >> > salesperson, I'm they'll tell you whatever you want to hear. >> > >> > >> >> Also, these comma-delimited fields make creating reports with our reporting tool impossible. >> >> >> > >> > Sounds like your reporting tool is horribly limited. Of course, >> > if you knew that you'd be using this reporting tool, then it was >> > your database designer's fault for not considering this limitation. >> > If you chose the reporting tool after the database was designed, then >> > it was a poor decision on your part. >> > >> > If you're looking for someone to blame (and it seems like you are) >> > then you should just pick someone and start making up reasons. That's >> > what politicians do with great success. >> > >> > Honestly ... what are you attempting to accomplish with this thread? >> > It seems to me that you're trying get the people on this mailing list >> > to help you justify being angry with your database designer. >> >> It seems to me he's quite legitimately trying to determine if there is >> more to his database designer's claim that these >> comma separated fields being "object-oriented", than he might think >> otherwise. PostgreSQL's (not very meaningful or helpful, IMO) >> characterization of itself as an "object-relational database system" no >> doubt leads to his very reasonable query whether he should >> be taking something more into account than normal relational database >> design principles. > > It's possible. > >> I think it's uncalled for to be attacking him or his motives. > > If that's the case, then I'm the one who will look like a arse. > > However, he's being very accusational of someone who isn't here to > defend. He's also providing no evidence for or against what he > apparently wants us to resolve (i.e. he's posted no schema information, > not even a partial schema). He's also asked a question that (really) > has no answer. Is PostgreSQL object-oriented? That's like asking if > those tires are gasoline or battery powered. object-oriented is an > approach to programming, not a definition of a language. I've seen > many a program written in an "object oriented language" that was > basically a functionally designed program. Language features really > mean little after the code is already written. > > PostgreSQL _certainly_ has a slew of features that make it conducive > to object oriented design. If that's the answer he's looking for, > then there it is. > > Reading between the lines, the original question was: "This guy is > making my life difficult, and he claims it's for this reason. Is > that reason valid?" And I fall back on my earlier statement: if > you're looking for someone to blame, just pick someone. Hell, blame > me for all I care. You wouldn't be the first person. I mean, if he > really wants to learn if PG is OO or not, what the does his reporting > software have to do with the discussion? -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
