 | |
#41
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: The Terrific Trio -
03-02-2008
, 06:57 AM
|
On 1 mar, 15:52, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote: The Terrific Trio. I've been mulling over the discussion about mixing OO and DB, with an eye towards coming up with a system that permits an object world and a relational schema to interact and collaborate productively. So far, I've got three components that each cover a piece of the territory. The first part is what I'm calling the "logical array", or "LARRY" for short. LARRY is loosely based on the tables in the programming language LUA.. LARRY permits content based addressing of data in virtually any form. This includes relational tables, but isn't limited to them. The next part is to have a language that manipulates relations, but one that can compute anything that's computable. I called this part the "Completely Universal Relational Language", or "CURLY" for short. CURLY is a little like SQL, but it's been extended to make it complete. The third part is to have a modeling language that's useful from modeling not only data, but behavior as well. Because the existing models of behavior tend to be centered around graph models, I wanted a modeling language that permitted relational sub-models, but also permitted graph sub-models. I call this modeling language "Model Of Everything", or "MOE" for short. When you put all three together, (LARRY, CURLY, & MOE), you get an environment that should be the nirvana of computing that we have all been looking for. I'm starting work on the implementation next week. Stay tuned! MOE is a looser...  |
#42
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 1 mar, 15:52, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote: The Terrific Trio. I've been mulling over the discussion about mixing OO and DB, with an eye towards coming up with a system that permits an object world and a relational schema to interact and collaborate productively. So far, I've got three components that each cover a piece of the territory. The first part is what I'm calling the "logical array", or "LARRY" for short. LARRY is loosely based on the tables in the programming language LUA.. LARRY permits content based addressing of data in virtually any form. This includes relational tables, but isn't limited to them. The next part is to have a language that manipulates relations, but one that can compute anything that's computable. I called this part the "Completely Universal Relational Language", or "CURLY" for short. CURLY is a little like SQL, but it's been extended to make it complete. The third part is to have a modeling language that's useful from modeling not only data, but behavior as well. Because the existing models of behavior tend to be centered around graph models, I wanted a modeling language that permitted relational sub-models, but also permitted graph sub-models. I call this modeling language "Model Of Everything", or "MOE" for short. When you put all three together, (LARRY, CURLY, & MOE), you get an environment that should be the nirvana of computing that we have all been looking for. I'm starting work on the implementation next week. Stay tuned! MOE is a looser... |
#43
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 1 mar, 15:52, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote: The Terrific Trio. I've been mulling over the discussion about mixing OO and DB, with an eye towards coming up with a system that permits an object world and a relational schema to interact and collaborate productively. So far, I've got three components that each cover a piece of the territory. The first part is what I'm calling the "logical array", or "LARRY" for short. LARRY is loosely based on the tables in the programming language LUA.. LARRY permits content based addressing of data in virtually any form. This includes relational tables, but isn't limited to them. The next part is to have a language that manipulates relations, but one that can compute anything that's computable. I called this part the "Completely Universal Relational Language", or "CURLY" for short. CURLY is a little like SQL, but it's been extended to make it complete. The third part is to have a modeling language that's useful from modeling not only data, but behavior as well. Because the existing models of behavior tend to be centered around graph models, I wanted a modeling language that permitted relational sub-models, but also permitted graph sub-models. I call this modeling language "Model Of Everything", or "MOE" for short. When you put all three together, (LARRY, CURLY, & MOE), you get an environment that should be the nirvana of computing that we have all been looking for. I'm starting work on the implementation next week. Stay tuned! MOE is a looser... |
#44
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 1 mar, 15:52, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote: The Terrific Trio. I've been mulling over the discussion about mixing OO and DB, with an eye towards coming up with a system that permits an object world and a relational schema to interact and collaborate productively. So far, I've got three components that each cover a piece of the territory. The first part is what I'm calling the "logical array", or "LARRY" for short. LARRY is loosely based on the tables in the programming language LUA.. LARRY permits content based addressing of data in virtually any form. This includes relational tables, but isn't limited to them. The next part is to have a language that manipulates relations, but one that can compute anything that's computable. I called this part the "Completely Universal Relational Language", or "CURLY" for short. CURLY is a little like SQL, but it's been extended to make it complete. The third part is to have a modeling language that's useful from modeling not only data, but behavior as well. Because the existing models of behavior tend to be centered around graph models, I wanted a modeling language that permitted relational sub-models, but also permitted graph sub-models. I call this modeling language "Model Of Everything", or "MOE" for short. When you put all three together, (LARRY, CURLY, & MOE), you get an environment that should be the nirvana of computing that we have all been looking for. I'm starting work on the implementation next week. Stay tuned! MOE is a looser... |
#45
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 1 mar, 15:52, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote: The Terrific Trio. I've been mulling over the discussion about mixing OO and DB, with an eye towards coming up with a system that permits an object world and a relational schema to interact and collaborate productively. So far, I've got three components that each cover a piece of the territory. The first part is what I'm calling the "logical array", or "LARRY" for short. LARRY is loosely based on the tables in the programming language LUA.. LARRY permits content based addressing of data in virtually any form. This includes relational tables, but isn't limited to them. The next part is to have a language that manipulates relations, but one that can compute anything that's computable. I called this part the "Completely Universal Relational Language", or "CURLY" for short. CURLY is a little like SQL, but it's been extended to make it complete. The third part is to have a modeling language that's useful from modeling not only data, but behavior as well. Because the existing models of behavior tend to be centered around graph models, I wanted a modeling language that permitted relational sub-models, but also permitted graph sub-models. I call this modeling language "Model Of Everything", or "MOE" for short. When you put all three together, (LARRY, CURLY, & MOE), you get an environment that should be the nirvana of computing that we have all been looking for. I'm starting work on the implementation next week. Stay tuned! MOE is a looser... |
#46
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 1 mar, 15:52, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote: The Terrific Trio. I've been mulling over the discussion about mixing OO and DB, with an eye towards coming up with a system that permits an object world and a relational schema to interact and collaborate productively. So far, I've got three components that each cover a piece of the territory. The first part is what I'm calling the "logical array", or "LARRY" for short. LARRY is loosely based on the tables in the programming language LUA.. LARRY permits content based addressing of data in virtually any form. This includes relational tables, but isn't limited to them. The next part is to have a language that manipulates relations, but one that can compute anything that's computable. I called this part the "Completely Universal Relational Language", or "CURLY" for short. CURLY is a little like SQL, but it's been extended to make it complete. The third part is to have a modeling language that's useful from modeling not only data, but behavior as well. Because the existing models of behavior tend to be centered around graph models, I wanted a modeling language that permitted relational sub-models, but also permitted graph sub-models. I call this modeling language "Model Of Everything", or "MOE" for short. When you put all three together, (LARRY, CURLY, & MOE), you get an environment that should be the nirvana of computing that we have all been looking for. I'm starting work on the implementation next week. Stay tuned! MOE is a looser... |
#47
| |||
| |||
|
|
When you put all three together, (LARRY, CURLY, & MOE), you get an environment that should be the nirvana of computing that we have all been looking for. I'm starting work on the implementation next week. Stay tuned! |
one million bucks and up), at least ones with more than dozen
participants, come to think of it maybe even smaller ones, due to
inbreeding. Dissenters were scolded for not recognizing nirvana when it
was staring them in the face. Outfits like AT&T used to have many such
projects going on at the same time. Sometime in the late 1980's or
early 1990's, higher-ups in some big N.A. corps coined a new form of
machismo: how many ten million dollar projects can you discard without
losing your job? Weak-minded (empathetic?) boards saw this as the
courage to face reality and those execs were usually promoted. The fad
then spread to Europe.
#48
| |||
| |||
|
|
When you put all three together, (LARRY, CURLY, & MOE), you get an environment that should be the nirvana of computing that we have all been looking for. I'm starting work on the implementation next week. Stay tuned! |
one million bucks and up), at least ones with more than dozen
participants, come to think of it maybe even smaller ones, due to
inbreeding. Dissenters were scolded for not recognizing nirvana when it
was staring them in the face. Outfits like AT&T used to have many such
projects going on at the same time. Sometime in the late 1980's or
early 1990's, higher-ups in some big N.A. corps coined a new form of
machismo: how many ten million dollar projects can you discard without
losing your job? Weak-minded (empathetic?) boards saw this as the
courage to face reality and those execs were usually promoted. The fad
then spread to Europe.
#49
| |||
| |||
|
|
When you put all three together, (LARRY, CURLY, & MOE), you get an environment that should be the nirvana of computing that we have all been looking for. I'm starting work on the implementation next week. Stay tuned! |
one million bucks and up), at least ones with more than dozen
participants, come to think of it maybe even smaller ones, due to
inbreeding. Dissenters were scolded for not recognizing nirvana when it
was staring them in the face. Outfits like AT&T used to have many such
projects going on at the same time. Sometime in the late 1980's or
early 1990's, higher-ups in some big N.A. corps coined a new form of
machismo: how many ten million dollar projects can you discard without
losing your job? Weak-minded (empathetic?) boards saw this as the
courage to face reality and those execs were usually promoted. The fad
then spread to Europe.
#50
| |||
| |||
|
|
When you put all three together, (LARRY, CURLY, & MOE), you get an environment that should be the nirvana of computing that we have all been looking for. I'm starting work on the implementation next week. Stay tuned! |
one million bucks and up), at least ones with more than dozen
participants, come to think of it maybe even smaller ones, due to
inbreeding. Dissenters were scolded for not recognizing nirvana when it
was staring them in the face. Outfits like AT&T used to have many such
projects going on at the same time. Sometime in the late 1980's or
early 1990's, higher-ups in some big N.A. corps coined a new form of
machismo: how many ten million dollar projects can you discard without
losing your job? Weak-minded (empathetic?) boards saw this as the
courage to face reality and those execs were usually promoted. The fad
then spread to Europe.
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.