Flash to JOG

JOG wrote:

> On Mar 13, 11:40 am, "David Cressey" <cresse....RemoveThis@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that
>>there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not
>>always agree with you, put you have commanded a level of respect from us
>>that makes Perryman's attempt at condescension ludicrous.
>>
>>You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if
>>you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck.
>
> I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol
> has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that
> the OO vanguard (as opposed to the rest of us who just use OO as a
> necessasry tool) have trouble with the conceptual/logical layer
> distinction that we all seem to see as bright as day. If nothing else
> our discussions with comp.oo have made me wonder why there are no
> programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the
> concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence.

Alphora's Dataphor
 >> Stay informed about: Flash to JOG 

On Mar 13, 2:24 pm, Bob Badour <bbad... DeleteThis @pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> JOG wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 11:40 am, "David Cressey" <cresse... DeleteThis @verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that
> >>there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not
> >>always agree with you, put you have commanded a level of respect from us
> >>that makes Perryman's attempt at condescension ludicrous.
>
> >>You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if
> >>you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck.
>
> > I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol
> > has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that
> > the OO vanguard (as opposed to the rest of us who just use OO as a
> > necessasry tool) have trouble with the conceptual/logical layer
> > distinction that we all seem to see as bright as day. If nothing else
> > our discussions with comp.oo have made me wonder why there are no
> > programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the
> > concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence.
>
> Alphora's Dataphor

I was trying to look into D4 recently, and was worried it had gone
under? Alphora's site is cryptic to say the least at the moment.

Rel also looked interesting, and I liked some of the syntax -
especially the fact that for relvar datatypes, A + B is the union of A
and B, and hence A += B is an insert, etc.
 >> Stay informed about: Flash to JOG 

On Mar 13, 3:51 pm, paul c <toledoby....TakeThisOut@ac.ooyah> wrote:
> JOG wrote:
> > ...
> > Rel also looked interesting, and I liked some of the syntax -
> > especially the fact that for relvar datatypes, A + B is the union of A
> > and B, and hence A += B is an insert, etc.
>
> I think it's more than syntax, TTM defines it that way.

I used a similar syntax on the current complier I am building...I
allowed the possibility to switch operator "+" with "UNION".

Considering relation A, B...

What is between [] is a relation
What is between {} are is an attribute set or subset
What is between || is a constraint (either expressed litteraly or as a
the constraint for an existing relation)

[INT_RANGE = | INT BETWEEN 10 AND 50 | ] --> INT_RANGE un-ary
relation (new type) is defined from INT data type --> IN_RANGE is
derived from INT.

[MAKE A={A1 INT_RANGE, A2 INT, A3 INT}] --> A header and constraint
set is constituted. It is benefiting from INT_RANGE constraint set
through simple typing.

[MAKE A={A1 INT_RANGE, A2 INT, A3 INT}] --> The traditional way
OR
[MAKE HEADER[A]=HEADER[B]] --> On this, I thought about openning the
possibility to create headers independently from relations at
definition time. The system keeps in the repository headers and
associates constraints to them. That way relation header B is
constituted and the constraints are implicitely implemented through
this mechanism...

The logic is

--> When a relation A is constituted a header[A] is necessarily
constituted and stored in the repository.
--> The above header can be assigned to another *unexisting* relation
and automatically defines a typing/constraining for all attributes at
once.



[MAKE C = [A + B]] --> Adds relation A to relation B and constitutes
new relation C body --> UNION (at relation level) /INSERT (at tuple
level)
[MAKE C = [A - B]] --> Substracts relation B from relation A and
constitutes new relation C body --> MINUS (at relation level) /DELETE
(at tuple level)
[MAKE C = [A * B]] --> multiples A per B (full cartesian product) and
assigns body to relation C body --> FULL JOIN (relation level)/
[MAKE C = [A/B{A1, .....AN}]] --> divides A per B and assigns result
to relation C body. --> GROUP BY

The rest is just presenting

PRESENT2D [C] --> Tabular format

Let me know what you think...
 >> Stay informed about: Flash to JOG 

On Mar 13, 6:10 pm, Cimode <cim... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 3:51 pm, paul c <toledoby... DeleteThis @ac.ooyah> wrote:
>
> > JOG wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Rel also looked interesting, and I liked some of the syntax -
> > > especially the fact that for relvar datatypes, A + B is the union of A
> > > and B, and hence A += B is an insert, etc.
>
> > I think it's more than syntax, TTM defines it that way.
>
> I used a similar syntax on the current complier I am building...I
> allowed the possibility to switch operator "+" with "UNION".
>
> Considering relation A, B...
>
> What is between [] is a relation
> What is between {} are is an attribute set or subset
> What is between || is a constraint (either expressed litteraly or as a
> the constraint for an existing relation)
>
> [INT_RANGE = | INT BETWEEN 10 AND 50 | ] --> INT_RANGE un-ary
> relation (new type) is defined from INT data type --> IN_RANGE is
> derived from INT.
>
> [MAKE A={A1 INT_RANGE, A2 INT, A3 INT}] --> A header and constraint
> set is constituted. It is benefiting from INT_RANGE constraint set
> through simple typing.
>
> [MAKE A={A1 INT_RANGE, A2 INT, A3 INT}] --> The traditional way
> OR
> [MAKE HEADER[A]=HEADER[B]] --> On this, I thought about openning the
> possibility to create headers independently from relations at
> definition time. The system keeps in the repository headers and
> associates constraints to them. That way relation header B is
> constituted and the constraints are implicitely implemented through
> this mechanism...
>
> The logic is
>
> --> When a relation A is constituted a header[A] is necessarily
> constituted and stored in the repository.
> --> The above header can be assigned to another *unexisting* relation
> and automatically defines a typing/constraining for all attributes at
> once.
>
> [MAKE C = [A + B]] --> Adds relation A to relation B and constitutes
> new relation C body --> UNION (at relation level) /INSERT (at tuple
> level)
> [MAKE C = [A - B]] --> Substracts relation B from relation A and
> constitutes new relation C body --> MINUS (at relation level) /DELETE
> (at tuple level)
> [MAKE C = [A * B]] --> multiples A per B (full cartesian product) and
> assigns body to relation C body --> FULL JOIN (relation level)/
> [MAKE C = [A/B{A1, .....AN}]] --> divides A per B and assigns result
> to relation C body. --> GROUP BY
>
> The rest is just presenting
>
> PRESENT2D [C] --> Tabular format
>
> Let me know what you think...

Promise me you're not going to do a neo and post this stuff on every
thread....
 >> Stay informed about: Flash to JOG 

JOG wrote:
> ...
> Rel also looked interesting, and I liked some of the syntax -
> especially the fact that for relvar datatypes, A + B is the union of A
> and B, and hence A += B is an insert, etc.

I think it's more than syntax, TTM defines it that way.
 >> Stay informed about: Flash to JOG 

Quoth JOG:
> I was trying to look into D4 recently, and was worried it had gone
> under? Alphora's site is cryptic to say the least at the moment.

It seems Alphora is having trouble after Bryn Rhodes and Nathan Allan
left. Dataphor download and support is available at
http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/.
--
Jon
 >> Stay informed about: Flash to JOG 

Jon Heggland wrote:

> Quoth JOG:
>
>>I was trying to look into D4 recently, and was worried it had gone
>>under? Alphora's site is cryptic to say the least at the moment.
>
> It seems Alphora is having trouble after Bryn Rhodes and Nathan Allan
> left. Dataphor download and support is available at
> http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/.

They left?!? Wow! Anyone know where they went?
 >> Stay informed about: Flash to JOG 

Bob Badour wrote:

> Jon Heggland wrote:
>
>> Quoth JOG:
>>
>>> I was trying to look into D4 recently, and was worried it had gone
>>> under? Alphora's site is cryptic to say the least at the moment.
>>
>>
>> It seems Alphora is having trouble after Bryn Rhodes and Nathan Allan
>> left. Dataphor download and support is available at
>> http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/.
>
> They left?!? Wow! Anyone know where they went?

D'Oh! http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/

That oughta learn me!

Note to self: Write "Click thru first, ask questions later!" on the
board 100 times.
 >> Stay informed about: Flash to JOG 

Quoth Bob Badour:
> Jon Heggland wrote:
>> It seems Alphora is having trouble after Bryn Rhodes and Nathan Allan
>> left. Dataphor download and support is available at
>> http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/.
>
> They left?!? Wow! Anyone know where they went?

Um... They started Database Consulting Group.
(http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/). Hopefully, Dataphor will rise
again as an open source project.
--
Jon
 >> Stay informed about: Flash to JOG 

Jon Heggland wrote:

> Quoth Bob Badour:
>
>>Jon Heggland wrote:
>>
>>>It seems Alphora is having trouble after Bryn Rhodes and Nathan Allan
>>>left. Dataphor download and support is available at
>>>http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/.
>>
>>They left?!? Wow! Anyone know where they went?
>
> Um... They started Database Consulting Group.
> (http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/). Hopefully, Dataphor will rise
> again as an open source project.

I wished years ago they would take the Turbo-Pascal approach to pricing
or at least the Oracle-borg approach to marketing. As an independent
consultant, I have had Oracle employees almost tackle me to force me to
take a copy of their dbms server product.
 >> Stay informed about: Flash to JOG 

"Bob Badour" <bbadour.TakeThisOut@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:47d95a6f$0$4067$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
> Jon Heggland wrote:
>
> > Quoth Bob Badour:
> >
> >>Jon Heggland wrote:
> >>
> >>>It seems Alphora is having trouble after Bryn Rhodes and Nathan Allan
> >>>left. Dataphor download and support is available at
> >>>http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/.
> >>
> >>They left?!? Wow! Anyone know where they went?
> >
> > Um... They started Database Consulting Group.
> > (http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/). Hopefully, Dataphor will rise
> > again as an open source project.
>
> I wished years ago they would take the Turbo-Pascal approach to pricing
> or at least the Oracle-borg approach to marketing. As an independent
> consultant, I have had Oracle employees almost tackle me to force me to
> take a copy of their dbms server product.

WHAT DO YOU WANT?
 >> Stay informed about: Flash to JOG 

David Cressey wrote:

> "Bob Badour" <bbadour RemoveThis @pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:47d95a6f$0$4067$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>
>>Jon Heggland wrote:
>>
>>>Quoth Bob Badour:
>>>
>>>>Jon Heggland wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It seems Alphora is having trouble after Bryn Rhodes and Nathan Allan
>>>>>left. Dataphor download and support is available at
>>>>>http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/.
>>>>
>>>>They left?!? Wow! Anyone know where they went?
>>>
>>>Um... They started Database Consulting Group.
>>>(http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/). Hopefully, Dataphor will rise
>>>again as an open source project.
>>
>>I wished years ago they would take the Turbo-Pascal approach to pricing
>>or at least the Oracle-borg approach to marketing. As an independent
>>consultant, I have had Oracle employees almost tackle me to force me to
>>take a copy of their dbms server product.
>
> WHAT DO YOU WANT?

I am not sure I understand the question. Didn't I already answer it?
 >> Stay informed about: Flash to JOG 

Quoth Bob Badour:
> Jon Heggland wrote:
>> Um... They started Database Consulting Group.
>> (http://www.databaseconsultinggroup.com/). Hopefully, Dataphor will rise
>> again as an open source project.
>
> I wished years ago they would take the Turbo-Pascal approach to pricing
> or at least the Oracle-borg approach to marketing.

I don't know what the Turbo-Pascal pricing was, but Dataphor was dirt
cheap, wasn't it? A pay-once server license, a few hundred dollars or
something? I don't remember; being a non-profit organisation, we didn't
pay the list price.
--
Jon
 >> Stay informed about: Flash to JOG