Re: [xml-dev] XML vs relational database

[Tei <oscar.vives@gmail.com>]

1) I agree with your definition of optimization. But optimization is better on high levels like analisys and design. Optimizing code make code hard to read. And this is a bad idea [tm]. Your definition looks too much like "code optimization" to be a cool one.
2) As soon runtime optimization make Java faster than C++, some people will switch. The people that need raw speed.
3) SQL engine optimization is implementation detail. Sylvain  is a user, so has nothing to do with engine building.
4) Now that I look at it, this one link is better to my needs than the wikipedia one: http://www.codersource.net/published/view/291/reflection_in.aspx
5) Thanks for your message. Interesting :DD

On 8/21/07, Rick Marshall <rjm@zenucom.com> wrote:

Computer Science 101...

This of course is nonsense.

...

The situation gets significantly worse when the interpreters can work
with calculus rather than algebra. Neural networks are possible the
ultimate example of self modifying (trainable?) structures that can't
explain themselves.

Reflection is just the runtime (and essential) part of optimisation.

Rick

Tei wrote:
>
>
> On 8/16/07, *Sylvain LOISEAU* <sylvain.loiseau@wanadoo.fr
> <mailto:sylvain.loiseau@wanadoo.fr>> wrote:
>
>     Can I say that?
>
>
> Reflection for SQL?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(computer_science)
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_%28computer_science%29>
>
> SQL is a query language, is designed to describe a information
> request, you have a prior knowledge about structure.
> You will ask about "SELECT Name FROM Horses WHERE Type=1", because you
> know the structure.
>
> SQL has not been designed for reflection, but there are extensions, so
> you can do that. But will feel like OOP  with C, the languaje support
> for it will suck.
>
>
>
>
>
>