Thanks for the insight. I was rapidly arriving at similar conclusions:) In fact, just prior to reading your post, I made an update to my post which links to an article by said Fabian Pascal which, in his own words exemplifies exactly why I am skeptical of him, and those who share his POV.

As you say, definitely worth reading, but there is an underlying tone that makes doing the reading more than a little grating.

It could be countered that the problem with the majority of the current crop of OODBMSs is that they are little more than a thin veneer upon incomplete implementations of the RM. As such, I too have experienced the downsides they exhibit. However, the problems I have encountered with the performance are addressable, and become lessened by the continued action of Moore's Law. The inherent inefficiencies of the OO to RM mappings are lessened by the continued performance improvements in hardware.

The problems that result from the misfit between the OO view of programming and the RM are not so lessened. Being solely within the domain of each individual programmers ability to utilise a consistent model to store, access ad manipulate his data, the problem is one rooted entirely within the "wetware" part of the overall software development equation, which until we coders can upgrade our WiROMs (What i Remember Only Memories) with silicone implants, the problems will persist regardless of how powerful our workstations and servers become:)

The primary author of the dbdebunk website places quotes he considers to highlight issues in understanding of the relational model by the unwashed. Fabin Pascal hates OODBMS and considers the whole of OO to be a dead end in computer science that should have been aborted awhile ago. He links to several sites critical of OO.

The main thing to take away from his criticisms, IMO, is that OO is not suitable for data management. OO as an application programming paradigm is not necessarily a bad thing, and Pascal doesn't really get into that area, since his interest is in data management.

... then a equally loaded RDBMS(or as Pascal would rather put an SQLDBMS)

By saying this, are you trying to imply that there's no difference? There is a huge difference. You may not know what makes them different, but you cannot equate the two.

My post was simply meant to be my impressions about the strength and feel of Fabin Pascal's position, not the correctness of his position. My (admittedly limited) understanding of situation is that all implamentations< sp? > that call them self a Relational Database Management system are not Truly relational. They do not allow complete set operations on the information in them. As such they do not correctly or fully use the Relational Model.

My statement about how Fabin Pascal thinks of OO is based on the links he has resently added to dbdebunk and some resent replies. He crusades against what he preceives as buzz word and hype of his (Database tool) industary. This is a good thing. And I feel he has some extremely valid points about so called OODBMS and the superority of the Relational Model, but he (Mr Pascal) comes across as arrogant. This is what I am mainly getting at: he is so focused on correctiong what is he think is wrong, and so blunt about it you have to be wary that you come away from his writings with only that he's a jerk.

I tried really hard to give my impressions of the Fabin Pascal and neutral on the database issues (other then relate my personal experence with OODBMS which was not good at all). I was not intending to offend.
MADuran (Who needs to go home and change his password to something he will remember)