Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 16:41:54 GMT
Message-ID: <mHjfg.15563$A26.362678_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>> Robert Martin wrote:
>>
>>> No, a DBMS is a bucket of bits with some low level rules to manage
>>> those bits. An OO application provides the beavior that the customer
>>> wants to see. We can completely eliminate the DBMS and replace it with
>>> another of an entirely different form (non Relational for example) and
>>> still have all the business behavior we need.
>>> The people who sell databases have sold you, and the industry, a
>>> misconception: that the database is the heart of the system. This is
>>> flawed. The heart of the system is the application code. The database
>>> is a detail to be decided at the last possible moment and kept in a
>>> position so flexible that it can be swapped out for another at a whim.
>>
>> No, a OO application is a bucket of bits with some low level rules to
>> manage
>> those bits. An DBMS provides the beavior that the customer
>> wants to see. We can completely eliminate the OO application and
>> replace it with
>> another of an entirely different form (non OO for example) and
>> still have all the business behavior we need.
>>
>> The people who sell OO applications have sold you, and the industry, a
>> misconception: that the OO application is the heart of the system.
>> This is
>> flawed. The heart of the system is the DBMS. The OO application
>> is a detail to be decided at the last possible moment and kept in a
>> position so flexible that it can be swapped out for another at a whim.
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 16:41:54 GMT
Message-ID: <mHjfg.15563$A26.362678_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Robert Martin wrote:
> On 2006-05-30 07:51:15 -0500, "CMCC" <c_jackal_at_hotmail.com> said: >
>> Robert Martin wrote:
>>
>>> No, a DBMS is a bucket of bits with some low level rules to manage
>>> those bits. An OO application provides the beavior that the customer
>>> wants to see. We can completely eliminate the DBMS and replace it with
>>> another of an entirely different form (non Relational for example) and
>>> still have all the business behavior we need.
>>> The people who sell databases have sold you, and the industry, a
>>> misconception: that the database is the heart of the system. This is
>>> flawed. The heart of the system is the application code. The database
>>> is a detail to be decided at the last possible moment and kept in a
>>> position so flexible that it can be swapped out for another at a whim.
>>
>> No, a OO application is a bucket of bits with some low level rules to
>> manage
>> those bits. An DBMS provides the beavior that the customer
>> wants to see. We can completely eliminate the OO application and
>> replace it with
>> another of an entirely different form (non OO for example) and
>> still have all the business behavior we need.
>>
>> The people who sell OO applications have sold you, and the industry, a
>> misconception: that the OO application is the heart of the system.
>> This is
>> flawed. The heart of the system is the DBMS. The OO application
>> is a detail to be decided at the last possible moment and kept in a
>> position so flexible that it can be swapped out for another at a whim.
> > Let this be a lesson to all you cowards who resort to ad-hominem attacks > and name calling.
Ad-hominem attacks like calling someone a coward? Idiot.
THIS post is a very good rebut to mine.
I disagree.
He actually
> used his BRAIN to invert my argument and throw it back in my face. And
> he did it without calling me a fool, or an idiot, or a trickster.
Regurgitating what you wrote and doing a couple global substitutions doesn't use much of a brain. Neither does it explain any more than simply pointing out that you are an ignorant idiot.
[irrelevancies snipped] Received on Wed May 31 2006 - 18:41:54 CEST