Re: OOP - a question about database access

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 18:05:06 -0500
Message-ID: <2fudnTVfvKLeVTOiRVn-tA@golden.net>

"Alain Javier Guarnieri del Gesu" <nntp_at_ajgdg.com> wrote in message news:slrnbqt2sj.eu4.nntp_at_ajgdg.com.invalid...

> * 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.

Yes, I find comp.object infertile ground as I said.

> I see no important
> advances there give the *primitiveness of the computational model*
> and the distinct lack of advences in past decades.

Again, I foresee no important advances in comp.object. Do you consider writing yet another web server an important advance? Do you think someone who has already mastered the technology will need comp.object to write another web server?

> 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?

Did I not say exactly that? Received on Sun Nov 09 2003 - 17:05:06 CST