Re: What databases have taught me
Date: 23 Jun 2006 12:10:33 -0700
Frans Bouma wrote:
> erk wrote:
> > So technologies and paradigms are the same thing?
> Ah, wordgames. You know what I meant.
No, I don't. The difference is important. I'm not playing word games. One can't "encapsulate" a "paradigm" behind a generic interface, the way presumably you mean to imply one can with a "technology." But I'm not certain what you mean.
> 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.
No, I think you chose the right words. I've heard similar things from native English speakers. I just don't think they make sense - at least, they mix apples and fuel tankers.
> 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. ;)
I like this line:
"C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog." - from smalltalk.org
> > 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
"/" can mean different things - it is also commonly used to give 2 synonyms for the same concept. I wasn't trying to argue.
> > 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)
I had no idea what you meant. Here are possible interpretations - you can possibly understand my confusion:
1. accessing data in an object-oriented way 2. accessing object-oriented data 3. accessing data in an OODBMS
Besides that "data access" is something which begs the question. But the above are all equally likely, and I was trying to clarify.