Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: What databases have taught me

Re: What databases have taught me

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:51:14 GMT
Message-ID: <mzDng.2197$pu3.55225@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>


topmind wrote:

>>>I can't think of a single statement that would be more antithetical to
>>>what the OO paradigm is about.
>>
>>Thank you for stepping forward to exemplify my recent statement that use
>>of the word 'paradigm' is the surest sign of a self-aggrandizing
>>ignorant. After all, 'paradigm' has many meanings where for each meaning
>>a better word exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzzword
>>
>>OO is a computational model and not a paradigm unless by 'paradigm' one
>>means an example of a computational model. Idiot. Further, it is a
>>computational model comprising a collection of features useful for
>>constructing large unpredictable state machines from small predictable
>>state machines or otherwise picked arbitrarily in the mid to late 1960's
>>for what seemed expedient at the time.

> 
> Lighten up, guys. "Paradigm" might not be precise, but few words are in
> software design.

Bullshit. Most of the words used have very precise definitions if one bothers to learn them. See ISO/IEC 2382 for instance.

The end product of design is necessarily precise. Can you imagine someone designing a building around having "some of those electric plug in thingies and some sort of light bulb thingie or other in every room" ? I can see the estimate from the builder for that design coming back: "That'll cost you some money--you know some of those colorful pieces of paper they let you exchange for thingies down at the store."

   There are often may ways to say the same thing and > many ways to interpret definitions and many ways to write a program to > return the same answer.

And there may be many precise designs that match an analysis and requirements with each design making different tradeoffs. Your point?

> I suggest you try to focus on more practical issues, such as comparing
> solutions to realistic scenarios rather than get bogged down in a
> definition battle.

Why? The idiot is a self-aggrandizing ignorant and a snake-oil salesman. He has nothing to offer, and I have no intention of wasting much of my time on that sort of charlatan.

  When software design is turned into a science rather > than an art, then revisit definitions. Until then, stop bickering over > art.

Art or artifice? In any case, we are not discussing art. We are comparing formalisms. Received on Sun Jun 25 2006 - 16:51:14 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US