Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
Date: 1 Jun 2006 07:22:14 -0700
Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 02:09:29 GMT, J M Davitt wrote:
> Concerning constraints, you wouldn't need any, in a purely declarative
> language. Constraint limits space where an imperative action can be taken.
This is not correct. Declarative isn't the alternative to imperative; functional is. Anyway, declarative constraints are useful in any language, even a purely functional one.
> I'd like to see some proof. In my personal, limited, ignorant, etc
> experience domain-oriented languages are in order of magnitude worse than
> worst OOPLs (like C++, for example). Practically all our customers start
> with some sort of domain-oriented language, be it SQL, Simulink etc. Yes,
> they get first 20% of functional requirements very quickly. Then, they
> discover that the rest cannot be made at any cost, that maintenance is a
> disaster, that non-functional requirements is what they should forever
> forget of. Our job is basically to throw all that domain-oriented rubbish
> away. Gradually, slowly, so that the customer wouldn't see it. In five
> years or so he gets a working system with 5% or less legacy code.
This story doesn't make any sense to me. DSLs are not intended as a general purpose solution; that's what the "S" stands for. And a DSL will of course be a *better* way of working with its domain than a general purpose language. Replacing a general purpose tool for a special pupose one within the special purpose one's domain is not good for anyone, unless the goal is to maximize billable hours.
Marshal Received on Thu Jun 01 2006 - 16:22:14 CEST