jack@citcom.UUCP (Jack Waugh) (11/24/87)
The programming language Smalltalk has been implemented with what the associated jargon calls "object-oriented virtual memory". Smalltalk is generally semi-interpreted. The interpreter can trap all dereferencing of object pointers and can call the virtual memory implementation as needed. The memory is permanent, like a file system or a DBMS, in that it survives power-downs on the computer. Thus, as far as I can see, the type of "virtual memory" system Smalltalk uses meets the definition of a DBMS. Are there applications that traditionally use a traditional DBMS that could as well or better use OOZE, LOOM, or another mechanism designed originally to meet Smalltalk's needs? Is there some reason to expect that few or no such DBMS application needs exist, some way that, say, relational or navigational DBMS would be generally superior to LOOM or the like or could generally be expected to run faster? As a reference on OOZE (Object-oriented Zoned Environment) and the problem from the Smalltalk direction, see the Byte special issue on Smalltalk, April of some year. For a description of LOOM (Large Object-oriented Memory), see the "Bits of History, Words of Advice" book out of Xerox PARC. The title probably begins "The Smalltalk-80 System;" or something like that.
yg@culdev1.UUCP (11/25/87)
In article <121@citcom.UUCP>, jack@citcom.UUCP (Jack Waugh) writes: > > Thus, as far as I can see, the type of "virtual memory" system > Smalltalk uses meets the definition of a DBMS. > The main difference between the Smalltalk systems and the traditional DBMS is the the lack of data sharing, concurrency control, and transaction management. (Yes, one could write a system in Smalltalk that do the above mentioned things). > Are there applications that traditionally use a traditional DBMS > that could as well or better use OOZE, LOOM, or another mechanism > designed originally to meet Smalltalk's needs? Do not know about OOZE or LOOM, so can't say.