I think the question boils down to something like “For this data set, is there information captured by a tree representation that’s not captured by a list of categories?” Trees, or graphs in general, can capture path-based relationships. Categories are based of course on set theory.
I think both have their place, and like anything within mathematics or programming it comes down to which metaphor more naturally and easily expresses what you’re trying to do. I find trees and graphs easy to think about and represent visually, but it all depends on the problem space and the approach.
Note: This is assuming the kind of “tree” we implement permits multiple inheritance if needed.
I think the question boils down to something like “For this data set, is there information captured by a tree representation that’s not captured by a list of categories?” Trees, or graphs in general, can capture path-based relationships. Categories are based of course on set theory.
I think both have their place, and like anything within mathematics or programming it comes down to which metaphor more naturally and easily expresses what you’re trying to do. I find trees and graphs easy to think about and represent visually, but it all depends on the problem space and the approach.
Note: This is assuming the kind of “tree” we implement permits multiple inheritance if needed.