Re: THe OverRelational Manifesto (ORM)

U-gene wrote:

>>>Like Bob, I couldn't find anything new. Maybe you could summarise
>>>exactly what problem you are trying to solve...

What problem? If the TTM already addresses the problem well, why would we need another solution? What does your solution do that no other solution does? How is it at least as good a solution as the existing solutions?

I have yet to discern any problem that your 'solution' solves other than coining some useless and meaningless new term that I suppose you want to be credited with coining.

> Why do I say about names? Let's imagine we can use two different
> program systems to complete some task. Using first system we have to
> introduce 100 different names to name different program objects (I mean
> types, variables, attributes or something else - it doesn't matter
> really). Using the second system we have introduce only 50 names. The
> using of second system seems to be easier, doesn't it?

Hardly. I can write a program as a single procedure without factoring out any reusable code, without identifying any cohesive subunits all the while reusing variables of compatible types where-ever possible. That program will require fewer names because I did not bother to name any subroutines and because I maximized variable name reuse.

The resulting program would be a complete mess that would be impossible to debug or maintain.

Alternatively, I might decompose a program into small cohesive units that in many cases will be provably correct and (suitably named) will facilitate human comprehension. In each of those small cohesive subroutines, I might minimize variable name reuse by limiting each local variable to a single task with a name describing that task.

The resulting program would be well organized and relatively easy to debug or maintain. Received on Thu Apr 13 2006 - 23:41:00 CEST