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

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 13:31:43 GMT
Message-ID: <35Xfg.16493$>

Marshall wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:

>>Marshall wrote:
>>Man, you sure are pushing hard for a legacy. Do you not intend to number
>>your laws? Should we take that as Spight's First Law? Or Spight's Zeroth
>>Law? And law of what?

> Since I've mentioned it a few times in this thread, it may appear
> that I'm "pushing hard." But I coined the phrase in 2002, and
> have mentioned it only about ten times since then. I have
> never mentioned it in any odd numbered years, for example.
> The fact that people routinely massively underestimate the
> power and importance of the dbms needs to be publicized.
> Because of this, you regularly hear people stating such
> ridiculous requirements as wanting to be able to swap
> out a dbms for a flat file!
> And if we have learned anything from OOP, it is that
> a concept is much easier to sell if it has a catchy name!
> (Oh, and I'll take "Spight's Zeroth," please.)

Spight's Zeroth Law of Data Dynamics?

>>Are we allowed to paraphrase? Like, for instance, would you accept
>>someone reworking it to: "Spight's Law: Necessity is the mother of
>>re-invention." ?

> I like it!

I don't think it is adequate though because it involves more than necessity. It is more like "Necessity and ... are the mothers of re-invention" but what comes after the "and" ? Ignorance? Myopia? Expediency? Haste? Recklessness?

So many good candidates...

>>>PS. Props to Greenspun's Tenth.
>>You and your obscure references to interesting geeks. You caused me to
>>waste an entire afternoon reading various and sundry snippets from
>>Greenspun's sites.

> Heh. He's quite the writer.

Yes, he is. Received on Fri Jun 02 2006 - 15:31:43 CEST

Original text of this message