Re: The IDS, the EDS and the DBMS

"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:DNk%c.142552$Fg5.39433_at_attbi_s53...

> That is a fair point, but I'm still going to claim it's not directly
> applicable. I haven't forsaken OO the way a non-smoker has
> forsaken smoking. I still very much like OO *and* I like RM.

There you go. I still very much like RM, *and* I like OO pretty well. I've mostly read books, rather than writing code. Two of the first ones were "Object Oriented Analysis" by Coad and Yourden and Object-Oriented Modeling and Design by Rumbaugh et al.

Aside from polymorphism, inheritance, and encapsulation, the big idea I got out of it is the juncture of state and behaviour. The disjoint analysis of data and process is the one thing that has bugged me in all my years as a "data centric" person. I think OO offers a reunion of the two.

> I'm not sure I understand you comment. If you are referencing
> multiple inheritance, then I still claim it's just that the kinks
> haven't been worked out yet. Also consider languages like
> Eiffel which have explicitly taken on the MI issues and
> addressed them directly, unlike C++, which tries to shield
> its eyes, and Java, which gives up on the problem as too hard.

Eiffel was described in one of the books I read. It sounds, to me as though it's "higher level" than C++ or Java.

While I was one of those who snubbed COBOL in the 1970s and 1980s, I'm forced to admit, in retrospect, that it's a much higher level language than C++ or even Java.

It seems the IT community went back to low level programming languages about the same time the word "geek" went from being an insult to being a compliment. Coincidence? maybe not.

> > > What is needed, then, is not a "mapping" from one to
> > > the other, but rather a *unification.*
> >
> > Sharp! :-)
>
> Thanks!

Yes, that is the best thing that's come out of this thread! Received on Tue Sep 07 2004 - 19:24:18 CEST