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

Andrew McDonagh wrote:
> ...
> It certainly does not mean we need to respond with insults to argue our
> point.
>
> Its like Buddists saying Christians (or other faith) are stupid because
> they hold different ideas of what is right.
> ...

It is not like that at all. Even I can see that comparison is a stupid one. It is about being morally right; Badour is talking about logically correct, accurate, sound, take your pick as long as you preserve the leading adverb, none of them have to do with morals.

I wish the object people would first try to agree on what an object is and then just exactly what their elemental operators are before they post out of their group. When I have looked at one of their big open problems which interested me, so-called serialization, it was laughable how they were re-inventing the faulty square wheels of the 1960's, adhoc hierarchical db's, weird concurrency schemes and so forth.

> Argue your points by all means - but insults are not needed to sway
> people one way or the other.
>

It can be dangerous to call a lunatic crazy but I have seen many a bloody eejit swayed by insult, in fact some of them by little else. In fact it's happened here.

p Received on Wed Jun 07 2006 - 00:05:07 CEST