Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
Date: 2 Jun 2006 10:17:59 -0700
Message-ID: <1149268679.459972.158970_at_u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
Sasa wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > Robert Martin wrote:
> >>On 2006-05-31 11:50:20 -0500, "topmind" <topmind_at_technologist.com> said:
> >>
> >>>I don't see how the issue of proprietary SQL is any different than a
> >>>proprietary app language.
> >>
> >>It's not. I want the application to be isolated from the DB; and I
> >>want the DB isolated from the application. I wan't the application
> >>programmers to be able to change from Oracle to MySQL to Flat files. I
> >>want the DB to have the freedom to support Java, C#, C++ or Python.
> >>
> >>Note the symmetry.
> >
> > I note a tremendous *lack* of symmetry!
> >
> > Java, C#, C++, and Python are comparably expressive, and at
> > comparable levels of abstraction. (I can hear the screams of
> > the language advocates already.) Sure, Python has list
> > comprehensions and C++ has a turing-complete generic type
> > system, but they're all fundamentally imperative and procedural.
> >
> > On the other side, you put together Oracle and flat files!
> > Oracle has natural join; flat files have what exactly? seek()?!
> >
> >
> > Marshall
> >
>
> What if you extend the list of clients with good old .BAT files?
>
> The point (as I see it) is that just as client code can vary storages,
> storage can serve different clients.
Sasa,
The c.o. people's arguments are mostly based on the false premise that a DBMS is a kind of storage mechanism. Once you accept a false premise, you can prove anything.
Now let us reconsider your question in light of the idea that a DBMS is not storage.
> The point (as I see it) is that just as client code can vary storages,
> storage can serve different clients.
HTH Marshall Received on Fri Jun 02 2006 - 19:17:59 CEST