Re: OOP - a question about database access
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:32:44 -0500
Message-ID: <5JednanSWoBxqzCiRVn-sA_at_golden.net>
"Universe" <universe_at_covad.net> wrote in message
news:31e3e$3fad2166$3f47e403$6646_at_msgid.meganewsservers.com...
>
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote:
>
> > "Universe" <universe_at_covad.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message
>
> > > > > "Robert C. Martin" <u.n.c.l.e.b.o.b_at_objectmentor.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >Objects like Employee, Customer, etc are completely
> unnecessary
> > > > > > >because that entities are already managed by the DBMS. You
> only need
> > > > > > >to map the database tables to visual controls like grids,
> edits, etc.
>
> > > > > > This might be true if the database application does absolutely
> not
> > > > > > processing of the data. If there are no business rules, and
> the
> > > > > > system does nothing more than add, display, modify, and delete
> > > > > > records, then having entity objects may not be very useful.
> On the
> > > > > > other hand, as soon as you add any business rules, such as
> field
> > > > > > validation, or summary reporting, etc. you need a way to
> separate
> > > > > > those rules from the database. That's one very useful
> application for
> > > > > > OO.
>
> > > > > What a pearl!
> > > > > ...
> > > > > If recognized OO writers show this "understanding" of the data
> > > > > management issues, imagine the rest.
>
> > > > Yep, it's widespread and piled high.
>
> > > ... *please* explain *concretely* why an app that processes
> *outside* of the
> > > dbms would not use > > separate types?
>
> > Please explain how your demand has anything to do with what I wrote.
>
> Not a demand, simply a request [note the *"please"*] in quest of
> furthering discussion to extend and deepen truth.
I took the emphasis as sarcasm. If that is not what you intended, why did you choose the emphasis you chose?
> Also I ended with:
> *"Be much 'Preciated, Elliott"*
>
> The question likely makes sense to whomever wrote:
> > > > > > >Objects like Employee, Customer, etc are completely
> unnecessary
> > > > > > >because that entities are already managed by the DBMS. You
> only need
> > > > > > >to map the database tables to visual controls like grids,
> edits,
>
> If it was you and you don't see the link, hey don't sweat it.
>
> However seems Alfredo Novoa made the remark.
He did, indeed.
> > > Can you guys explain why OO's support for polymorphism is bad, or
> not
> > > useful?
>
> > Why would I explain anything I never said? Can you explain why the sky
> is
> > pink?
>
> If you have never explicitly said that on comp.object, it was implicit
> to me in your explicit comments.
I do not make implicit statements. Please confine your criticism or analysis to what I actually write or say. Otherwise, you are arguing with your own imagination, which is nothing more than intellectual masturbation.
How do I lose anything from not accepting the thoughts you incorrectly attribute to me? Who is in a better position to know my mind? You have nothing to offer me in that regard.
> > > Can you explain why using models that are more intuitive for both
> > > developers and clients should be avoided and disdained.
>
> > I don't do that.
>
> You don't explain why you make disparaging remarks about OO--you just
> make 'em?
OO is far less intuitive for anyone--let alone clients! How many times have you heard an OO bigot say: "You just don't understand OO." ? I lost count more than a decade ago, and I find it very amusing when an OO neophyte tells me that. I have made no statements to disparage OO; I simply have a realistic view of its strengths and its limitations. I also have a realistic view of how to improve upon it.
> Whatever floats your boat, but most of us find this a key,
> worthwhile practice for this newsgroup. If you are anti-OO, you hang
> out here at times, and you "don't do that" explaining of your pov, then
> what's "that" you are up to?
What have I written that explicitly states I am anti-OO? Or that suggests I have an unrealistic view of OO?
Personally, I do not hang out in comp.object. Having long ago mastered the technology, I find comp.object infertile ground and a waste of time. I foresee no important advances there given the primitiveness of the computational model and the distinct lack of advances in past decades. You only see my posts because this thread is cross-posted to comp.databases.theory, where I see very fertile ground.
> > I encourage the use of the relational model, and I have
> > never disdained it. If you are suggesting that some primitive
> location-based
> > computational model has usability advantages, please show us your
> empirical
> > evidence.
>
> There are few formal analyses that OO modelling is less complex and more
> intuitive.
That makes sense given it is much more complex and far less intuitive. For most and very probably all developers, it is very much an acquired skill.
> However the empirical evidence that most advanced developers and IS/IT
> savvy clients generally find OO models more intuitive, and or less
> complex than models of other paradigms for the same given context is
> that they communicate this understanding.
Expert developers understand and use OO--not because it is intuitive but because they trained very hard for an extended time in order to understand it. Even still, few of them understand it well enough to recognize its limitations or its essential nature.