Re: Simple Question?

>> >> I'm afraid that you missed on the essence of my earlier response. >> >> All things can be done using the existing tools and paradigms. They could >also >> be done with assembler code/machine language. But that's not the purpose >of >> why any object oriented environment is used. >> >! UDO doesn't mean !OO. Object orientation is the main difference between DSA and UDO. >Then by that token, New Era isn't OO. ;-) > >The point is, how does UDO extend OO to the engine? >Can I create new data types? Yes. That is what a datablade is all about - be it written in c, java, or SPL. >Can I create new relational operators? No, but you can extend/overide the functionally of the existing ones. >Can I perform function overloading with existing operators? Yes. > >My point is that I have a problem to solve. >How does UDO increase my ability of offering a solution. >I chose a real life situation which problems are being solved. > >Real Time option valuation, while not esoteric is rocket science. >Yet its been done well before UDO. By all current statements, >since this can be solved with a commodity database Informix >isn't interested. Since it isn't enterprise wide, it fails that >criteria. So does this mean Informix doesn't want to chase the >banking industry? ;-) > >How does UDO improve upon the work already done? Seriously. >You have this greatest thing since sliced bread and I want to know >how it applies to my clients' businesses? > >Is UDO C++? Java? or C? (C isn't OO BTW.) > >> The main reason for any OO environment is to enable the designer to expand >the >> methods and rules for simpler data types to cover any data type that the >> designer might envision. >> >I'm not questioning OO, I am questioning UDO. >Tell me what problems I can solve in this areana that I couldn't >solve before. > >Consider me the client, this my problem, and you the salesman. >Now make that sale. > >(There is a reason for this thread. Its not a form of mental > masterbation.) > >-Mikey > Madison Pruet