Re: One Ring to Bind Them

From: Eric Kaun <>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:01:14 GMT
Message-ID: <eunzc.307$>

Yes, you're right on all counts.

It seems that at some point in the history of computing, software developers decided to traipse down the path of implementation, rather than the other fork: declarative logic. Somehow thinking like a processor, juggling long procedures and registers (objects), is deemed better than writing engines / JVMs / compilers that take declarative statements and generate the necessary procedures.

"Laconic2" <> wrote in message
> Was: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?
> "Eric Kaun" <> wrote in message
> news:wekzc.25516$
> > This is, more than anything, the philosophical divide between relational
> and
> > Pick folks. The more rules, the more they should be kept OUT of the
> > application code. "Application" means just that: a judicious
> Of
> > what? Rules. Application != definition, just as implementation !=
> > specification.
> It isn't just the Pick folks. The OO folks also feel that the business
> rules belong encapsulated inside the objects that "really know what's
> on", as opposed to formalized as metadata and shared the same way data
> shared.
> In the days when databases were being spread to the old COBOL and files
> gang, this divide was called the difference between "process centric"
> "data centric" views of the world. I think it's really the same divide,
> over and over again.
> It even happens within the RDBMS vendors. I've been watching SQL
> evolve from a bad answer to the requirement for a "universal data
> sublanguange" into a bad programming language, in its own right.
Received on Mon Jun 14 2004 - 22:01:14 CEST

Original text of this message