Re: c.d.theory glossary -- definition of "class"
Date: 23 Jun 2004 16:09:16 -0700
Message-ID: <e4330f45.0406231509.641c1b0_at_posting.google.com>
mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:<40d9d21b$0$566$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>...
> > Most times it is a type.
>
> This is the us vs them explanation.
> 'us' (relational) database redefining the world,
> them OO developers who don't even get their central
> concepts clear.
> This does not help understanding across
> paradigmatic boundaries at all.
> On the contrary, it demarcates.
It demarcates the serious guys and the charlatans.
> Behavior is a central aspect to OO. Any respectful
> description of the term class should include behavior.
Behavior is a very informal and fuzzy term. The behavior is determined by the semantics of the operators. This is a term we should drop in formal contexts.
> So let's abolish all terms that have more meanings?
Yes if we have alternatives with only one meaning.
> There won't be many words left.
A good thing :)
> The term is used. It is used by a lot of people who use databases.
We should help to reduce the number :)
> It is used in relation to the use of databases.
> It is important to have an understanding of what is meant
> when 'class' is used in the context of databases.
Many things. That's the problem.
> Somebody who strikes it from the vocabulary simply won't
> hear what is said when the term is used.
I want to know what is intended to be said, that's why I ask for more precise terms.
Regards
Alfredo
Received on Thu Jun 24 2004 - 01:09:16 CEST