Re: What databases have taught me

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:13:02 GMT
Message-ID: <2yTmg.1112$>

Frans Bouma wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:

>>Frans Bouma wrote:
>>>JOG wrote:
>>>>Well after a brief hiatus I have just ploughed through the whole
>>>>800 posts of the OO vs RM thread. Some discouraging stuff indeed.
>>>>Over the last few years a study of database technology, helped
>>>>greatly by discussions in cdt, has educated my opinions
>>>>significantly, and perhaps my albeit slow progress can be
>>>>illuminative to others.
>>> Please also realize that in comp.databases*, a lot of people are
>>>die-hard database pundits who preach to implement everything of an
>>>application inside the DB, including BL.
>>I assume BL=business logic. What, exactly, is your objection to using
>>predicate logic for dealing with logic? (Other than ignorance.)
>>Exactly what formalism do you propose that surpasses the predicate
>>calculus for dealing with logic?
> 	Oh dear, it was crossposted. 
> 	I wasn't talking about predicate calculus, I was talking about a
> complete middle-tier business logic tier.

Logic is logic. You appeared to dismiss everyone knowledgeable about data management as preachers who somehow mistakenly believe they know something useful for dealing with business logic.

However, the data management world has a firm grasp of exactly how to leverage the power of predicate logic for both integrity and manipulation of data. Given an application that has data to manage and an available data management system, I think one needs a very strong argument for not using the latter for the former.

Your suggestion for a 'middle-tier business logic tier' says far more about your own limitations and the limitations of the tools you prefer than anything else. I suggest you demonstrate a profound lack of imagination.

  But let's not go there, I

> don't want a discussion about that with people who think everything
> except perhaps the bare-bones gui should be inside an RDBMS system.
> let's agree to disagree on that, we just share different views on that
> topic.

With all due respect, you are spreading ignorant misconception that is likely to harm people. I see no reason to remain silent with my disagreement while you habitually dismiss better science and better mathematics with ad hominem. Refuse to learn all you want. But don't encourage others to join you in your willful ignorance.

>>>>- I started life as a procedural programmer.
>>>>- I adopted OO and soon got the 'aha' click described by R.
>>>>Martin. - I spent years coding large OO projects, with
>>>>beautiful, elegant architectures.
>>>>- I spent further years practically gnawing my arm off attempting
>>>>to adapt my perfect OO designs as requirements inevitably shifted
>>>>and exceptions arose.
>>>>- I finally realised that my 'aha' was utterly illusionary, and
>>>>that my code, being OO, was inevitably and irrecovably imprisoned
>>>>in a hierarchical strait-jacket
>>> I don't know anything about you nor your projects, so I can't
>>>comment on the experiences you got if they're the result of OO or
>>>the result of applying OO wrong.
>> From the little bit you write here, I know a lot about you. For
>>instance, you know little or nothing about higher-level abstractions,
>>the benefits of symmetric operations, the advantages of declarative
>>techniques over procedural techniques, robust type systems,
>>separation of concerns and probably a whole host of other fundamental
> Which part of "So I can't comment on..." don't you understand?

If you cannot comment on it, why did you mention it in the first place?

Alluding to it the way you did is just an intellectually dishonest and backhanded way of introducing an ad hominem argument.

"I don't know anything about you nor your parents, so I cannot comment on the experiences you got if they're the result of random pairing of recessives or the result of incestuous in-breeding." See what I mean?

>>Your speculation over JOG's limitations proves only your own.
> that's your interpretation

It's more than an interpretation. It's clearly evident from what you wrote. The only thing preventing you from inferring it on your own is your own ignorance--and by that I don't mean your ignorance of JOG or his projects.

, I just wanted to formulate that what his > experiences were could be the result of wrongly applied OOP

In other words, you wanted to dismiss what he said using ad hominem because it is a lot easier than actually thinking and learning.

, which
> could perfectly be caused by his teammembers

Or could perfectly be caused by exactly what he ascribed it to. After all, he was there. Do you suppose you have either greater intelligence or greater experience of JOG's work? Don't you think either presupposition would be remarkably arrogant?

, or by a skewed project
> description or whatever.

'Whatever' being anything as long as it lets you write sophistry to puff yourself up while letting you off the hook from doing anything so difficult as actually thinking.

>>I can comment on JOG--his experiences have nothing to do with a
>>misapplication of OO.

> 	That's great to know, it wasn't in the posting. Again, my goal wasn't
> to judge the poster's knowledge, just that it's perfectly possible to
> have bad experiences with OO like with any technology/method, and thus
> that could influence how you think about it.

I don't see how that lets you off the hook for being completely ignorant of the fundamentals of your profession. Had you any grasp of those fundamentals you would have simply taken JOG's post at face value instead of replying with knee jerk sophistry.

>>> What I can say is that if you don't realize that <insert tech /
>>>paradigm here>
>>The surest sign of a self-aggrandizing ignorant is the wanton use of
>>the word 'paradigm' which has many meanings where for each meaning a
>>better word exists.

> 	so, all you want is just flame me. Cool, have fun, Bob. 
> 		FB

Sure, whatever. Received on Fri Jun 23 2006 - 17:13:02 CEST

Original text of this message