Re: OOP - a question about database access

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 20:36:26 -0500
Message-ID: <xPSdnQQCLvchdjOiRVn-gg_at_golden.net>

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

> * Bob Badour <bbadour_at_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?

>
> Perhaps in the world databases and buisness applications, OO is
> nothing special. I was simply curious if you felt that notions like
> encapsulation, polymorhism, aggregation, and inhertience have had
> their day.

Encapsulation: Physical and logical independence have great importantance and I foresee no change to reduce their importance.

Polymorphism: Which kind?

Aggregation: Which kind?

Inheritance: Type inheritance is very useful and important, but its most promising future does not lie anywhere along a linear address space.

> Another web server might offer an incremental advance and one that > is not at all unimportant.

An advance to what though? To web servers? Big deal.

> What alternatives to object-oriented programming would you offer to > the author of that web server?

That depends on what you think "object-oriented programming" means. The term is rather nebulous after all.

> >> 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?

>
> Okay, you intended to say the forum was infertile, not the
> discipline. Understood. Semantics are boring.

I suppose that explains your negligent lack of care with respect to meaning. Received on Mon Nov 10 2003 - 02:36:26 CET