Re: OOP - a question about database access

• Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net>: > "Alain Javier Guarnieri del Gesu" <nntp_at_ajgdg.com> wrote in message > news:slrnbqr852.bf4.nntp_at_ajgdg.com.invalid...
  >> * Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net>:
  >> > 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.
  >>
  >> Coming in to the thread a little late, but, do you feel that OO is
  >> infertile and a waste of time for developing, say windowing
  >> environments, or a web server?
  > > I did not say anything about OO above. I suggest you read with greater care > for comprehension.

Trying again: Having long ago mastered the *technology*, I find comp.object infertile ground and a waste of time. I see no important advances there give the *primitiveness of the computational model* and the distinct lack of advences in past decades.

Having reread your statement, you do indeed appear to be characterizing a technology and computational model as infertile. You did not say that it was "OO", but, you reference comp.object, which is a forum for discussion of "OO".

I don't feel that any greater care on my part, will make any more sense of your statement.

Did you indend to say that comp.object was infertile ground?

--
Javi