Re: Issues with the logical consistency of The Third Manifesto
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:11:42 GMT
Message-ID: <ixqmd.345126$wV.289642_at_attbi_s54>
"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:4199ee3b.7913171_at_news.wanadoo.es...
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 02:58:23 GMT, "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> > In any event, it's pretty
> >> > clear that D&D don't really understand OOP;
> >>
> >> I disagree. IMO they understand OOP a lot better than the overwhelming
> >> majority of the OO coders.
> >
> >I've seen no evidence that they understand it in any least way.
>
> IMO TTM is an evidence.
>
> They know that object sometimes means value, sometimes means variable,
> sometimes means conceptual entity, etc.
Actually, an object is always a value, and simultaneously always a variable (assuming it has any mutable fields.) It is also always a conceptual entity. But this is such triviality that I've never seen anyone bother to mention it. No one is *confusing* values and variables; an object is both, and which one we are talking about is, most of time, immediately obvious.
There *is* an issue with the difference between equality and identity in OOP, but this is fairly easily mastered by beginners.
> The know that methods are operators and that class sometimes means
> scalar type and sometimes means entity type.
>
> They know how OO inheritance works and that it is more related to
> delegation than to subtyping.
Okay.
> They know that there is not a thing called "The OO Data Model".
> They know that to bundle operators with a single type is not a good
> idea.
The binary method issue? This is again a fairly unimportant issue.
> They know that pointer based programming is painful and primitive.
Here I will agree that they are ahead of the OO crowd, which is still quite wrapped up in pointers.
> Etc.
>
> >> The problem is that the principle of incoherence applies to the OOP.
> >
> >I disagree here.
>
> I should say to an important part of the OOP authors like Ambler,
> Larman.
Hmmm. I will not disagree. But I will point out that there are some quite coherent authors on OOP; Fowler for example, or see also Joshua Bloch's brilliant "Effective Java."
> >> He does not understand it because it is very bad expressed. There is
> >> nothing valuable or specific to the OO there.
> >
> >Really?
>
> Really, it is horribly expressed.
>
> >What does it mean? It seems obvious to me; but then, I've done
> >a lot of application coding that talks to a dbms in OOPLs. It means
> >that one would like to be able to have a lightweight way of having
> >a class (alternatively: a set of methods) associated with the rows
> >of a resultset, even if this resultset came from a join, so that one
> >could directly go from a query to a set of objects.
>
> I am using that kind of classes since my first database application.
>
> In Delphi such class is called TDataSet, in VB I think that it was
> called RecordSet, in .NET there is a class called DataTable, in
> PowerBuilder there is a class called DataWindow, etc.
Does they have methods specific to the specific join? I think that is what the guy was referring to. Ideally this would be done dynamically, not via code generation.
Marshall Received on Tue Nov 16 2004 - 18:11:42 CET