Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)

On 1 Jun 2006 07:22:14 -0700, Marshall wrote:

> 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.

Why?

> Declarative isn't the alternative to imperative;
> functional is.

Yes

> Anyway, declarative constraints are useful
> in any language, even a purely functional one.

Sure. No less they are useful in an OO language. Specialization by constraining is a very powerful mechanism.

>> 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.

The only problem is to find the domain... I have an impression that the sole domain of many DSLs is actually money-making.

> 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.

It is better to be able to find the tool in the same tool box.

I prefer to have special purpose solutions in the form of libraries of an universal-purpose language.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de