Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 2601:283:4A80:5300:A40A:B4F:1584:3532 - "" |
|||
Line 9:
SQL isn't relational, and most of the mentions of 'relational' here aren't correct but refer to SQL actually. So I am correcting the article and will move it. [[User:Leandrod|Leandrod]] 19:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
: I am sure there is an interesting hair being split here, but in general, "SQL" is the industry standard for accessing "relational" databases, and "ORM" is what this kind of tool is called. I don't know what more to say about the subject without understanding what hair is being split exactly. Is the issue that SQL is a pragmatic real-world language rather than an idealized relational formalism? But ORM tools are also pragmatic real-world tools. Suffice to say I agree with other editors who have changed it all back to "object-relational mapping". [[User:Lexspoon|Lexspoon]] ([[User talk:Lexspoon|talk]]) 13:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "SQL isn't relational" SQL is a language designed to act create, modify and select data from relational databases. In any case the whole rest of the world refers to what you've decided to call "Object-SQL mapping" by the term "Object-Relational Mapping" I refer you to the google score of 248 result for "object sql mapping" and 380,000 for "object relational mapping" with similar results with and without a dash. If the article needs to be clarified and improved please do so, but unless I hear back from you or others, I will move this article back to object-relational mapping, which, I strongly believe is where the vast majority of people expect to find it. [[User:Kznf|Charles (Kznf)]] 01:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
| |||