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

From: Keith H Duggar <>
Date: 13 Jun 2006 08:29:01 -0700
Message-ID: <>

erk wrote:
> It's #3 I object to. I've created mapping layers (not my
> idea) which allow swapping an XML "data source" for a SQL
> (JDBC) one. A colossal pain in the ass which is
> complicated by the fact that the underlying "data models"
> are incompatible; the XML was much more restrictive,
> forcing dumbing-down. I don't believe its hierarchy adds
> much meaningful information to flat files (having create
> mapping utilities from flat files to object hierarchies, I
> have to say that's it's not rocket science and has fewer
> pains in the ass than XML does, despite the availability
> of parsers).

I don't know why but for a few years I was seduced by XML hype and did my best to embrace it. I used XML/XSLT to generate webpages, XML for simulation parameter files, XML to write significant documents with XSLT to transform them to LaTeX or HTML/CSS or PostScript, etc. Anything and everything I could think of.

In the end just as you found (if I understood you correctly) XML sucked for serialization of program parameters/data for my applications as you said /DESPITE/ the availability of parsers. I kept falling back to flat files. Refinements on those ultimately led to my interest in the relational model. As for the XML/XSLT apps I mentioned, well it did work and I didn't even really mind the verbosity. However, I did mind that I had to learn so many /different/ languages to do useful work (XML/XSL/DTD/HTML/CSS/XPath/MathML/SVG, XML attribute syntax, etc). I kept wondering why the hell all these were not simply Lisp and wishing that this were so, ie that HTML had been Lisp from it's inception like

  (html( (body( ... )body) )html)

or similar. Then it seemed that all the other alphabet soup would have been superfluous and never "invented". And I could of done much more by learning a single syntax along with the usual programming knowledge.

Now I feel the XGurus cheated us, and wasted the valuable time of many (or all) of us.

> Relational is more powerful than other data models, and
> models the business better. SQL continues to be better
> than XML and the others, despite its weak adherence to
> relational ideas; even watered-down, perverted relational
> is better than the alternatives. I wish my languages had
> relations (and its necessary components, constraints and
> user-defined types - aka objects) as first-class citizens
> - it would eliminiate a lot of unnecessary code, catch
> errors in my thinking, and eliminate the "impedence
> mismatch."

Same here. How do you like Tutorial D?

  • Keith --
Received on Tue Jun 13 2006 - 17:29:01 CEST

Original text of this message