Re: Issues with the logical consistency of The Third Manifesto
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:28:36 +0100
Message-ID: <4199036c$0$209$edfadb0f_at_dread11.news.tele.dk>
"Alfredo Novoa" <anovoa_at_ncs.es> ...
<snip>
> Tuples are objects, relations are objects, classes are objects,
With such a definition you exclude yourself from commenting on what OO
> variables are objects, operators are objects, I am an object,
> everything is an object.
>
> A good definition of object is this:
>
> Object: Something intelligible or perceptible by the mind.
For you it obviously means everything, i.e. in fact nothing in particular.
Now, if an OO-addicted mixes relations, tables and classes you bash him. But he might have another definition of a relation than you do ...
It is certainly true that "relation" is much, much better and more unambiguous defined than "class" and "object". But quite a few knows a difference between class, object, operator, relation etc., even if you apparently don't (accept such a distinction).
> He also misses the point about the identity of the objects.
How? And what do you mean by "objects" here?
Received on Mon Nov 15 2004 - 20:28:36 CET