Re: What databases have taught me

From: Frans Bouma <>
Date: 23 Jun 2006 16:21:24 GMT
Message-Id: <>

erk wrote:

> Frans Bouma wrote:
> > [snip]
> > What I can say is that if you don't realize that <insert tech /
> > paradigm here> is just a tool to get to the goal you want to
> > achieve:
> So technologies and paradigms are the same thing?

        Ah, wordgames. You know what I meant.

> Presumably a
> "paradigm" (overloaded++) influences how we think about problems
> and/or solutions, and is thus much more than just a "technology,"
> which (I'm assuming) is a means to an existing end. Paradigms,
> presumably, alter the ends by our understanding of the domains
> involved.

        That's great, I was more referring to the difference between OO and procedural software development. But I'm not a native english speaker, so I might have chosen the wrong word.

> > True, a good example is a Math library in an OO language runtime
> > library. It often is implemented as a library with static methods in
> > one big class or several different classes without state nor
> > specific type, just a vehicle to hold the static methods together.
> >
> > That doesn't mean OO sucks, it means for functional problems which
> > can be appearing in any domain, it might be best to use a
> > functional / procedural approach instead of an OO.
> And how many programming problems are truly unique to the domain, and
> not manifestations of a more general functional pattern? Sadly, I see
> this in Java all too often - dozens of static methods thrown into
> "Util" "classes", none of which are actually O-O at all, because Java
> supports no top-level constructs other than classes. (Clearly other
> languages can avoid this issue, but it illustrates the greater utility
> of functions - witness CLOS in Lisp, as an example of objects done
> right with hooks to meta-object operations.)

        True. I also sometimes think that some OO languages should have more flexible ways to implement things. A bad example perhaps is C++, which offers you to write plain C and OO together, however OOP fanatics will now butcher me by saying that C++ isn't a true OO language. ;)

> > The same applies to using OO-esk constructs in an procedural
> > language.
> Don't equate procedural and functional.

        yeah, though were did I imply they were the same? isn't '/' implying a choice? Or do you just want to argue because you had nothing better to do?

> > What I can say is that often people are too blinded by the paradigm
> > they use. Take for example Object oriented data-access.
> What, pray tell, is "object oriented data-access"?

        Why, on earth, don't you read up about the world outside your _R_DBMS before replying? Like oh, OODBMS's ? (yes they do exist)


Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website:
My .NET blog:
Microsoft MVP (C#) 
Received on Fri Jun 23 2006 - 18:21:24 CEST

Original text of this message