Re: Issues with the logical consistency of The Third Manifesto

"erk" <eric.kaun_at_pnc.com> wrote in message news:1100629959.340700.20140_at_z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> I disagree. I think there's more confusion than you'd like to believe,
> and furthermore that it's very easy, even for experienced programmers,
> to unknowingly attempt to treat instances as both values and variables.
> Look for "aliasing" on citeseer - this is a serious problem, and I've
> run into it on many projects.

I didn't say it didn't happen; I said it wasn't the huge problem it is sometimes made out to be.

> > There *is* an issue with the difference between equality and
> > identity in OOP, but this is fairly easily mastered by beginners.
>
> A moment to learn, a lifetime to master - if mastery is possible. This
> is an ugly concept, of little value in my opinion. Perhaps caches and
> other "manager" services can use this, but I think this is a hack.

I generally agree that it's not a valuable concept, but this is a minority opinion; lots of smart people think otherwise.

> > 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
>
> If you generate proxies or class dynamically, based on the
> most-specific type of the relational expression, then how can the
> function be assigned to that combination, in the absence of a
> predefined class name? I'm a little confused here...

This was not in reference to any existing system; it was more of an idea for the future.

Marshall Received on Wed Nov 17 2004 - 02:38:40 CET