Re: Argument for 1NF by counter-example
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:48:18 -0700
Message-ID: <10k8o0p3al3godgeurcbjmeo474l8ba3u9_at_4ax.com>
"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote:
>"Tony Douglas" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message news:bcb8c360.0410281320.496ab93a_at_posting.google.com...
[snip]
>> Firstly, the object oriented languages don't seem to agree on what
>> *precisely* an object is; the views of say, Java, C++, Simula and
>> Smalltalk seem to differ, albeit sometimes subtly, on this.
>
>I dunno; I think this whole line of argumentation is a snow job from
>the dbdebunk camp. In some ways it is a *good* thing that the OO
>languages each have their particular semantics; it's a sign that the
>field is vital and active, and trying out new ideas. In contrast,
>relational languages are stultifyingly stuck under the mighty thumb
>of SQL.
OTOH, it could be that they do not have their act together yet.
I would like to see more agreement on something so basic to OOP as objects.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices.Received on Sun Oct 31 2004 - 03:48:18 CET