Re: What databases have taught me

From: Frans Bouma <>
Date: 26 Jun 2006 08:33:38 GMT
Message-ID: <>

Bob Badour wrote:
> 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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."

        Though it's also a language thing. In my native language, Dutch, we have the same word for Relation and Relationship. This is common in a lot of the european languages. This gives problems when you discuss elements of a relational model: one would use the same word for two fundamental different elements in the relational model. If a person who's native language contains one word for Relation and Relationship has to write an english text, like a newsposting, it can be that the person uses the wrong word, as the person just knows one word for both: to do it correctly, you have to know that in English there are two words, not one.

        This just as an example how a person could end up choosing the wrong word for a term where a person would have picked a different word if the person would have been a native speaker of the target language. I agree that definitions, if set in stone, should be followed, but I also find that if both parties in a discussion know from eachother what the other means by a given word W, bickering over definitions is IMHO making the discussion impossible.

> > 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.

        What saddens me a bit is that instead of having an open discussion about the core topic, you find it necessary to insult people which IMHO only kill off the discussion. I'm not sure if that's your intention, though it looks like it.

        The thing is that in every day life, thousands of developers have to face the problem of the mismatch between the language they (have to) work with and the nature of the persistent storage they (have to) work with. Making a discussion about said problem impossible by insulting people without any reason, is not helping these developers. But maybe you're not interested in solving these developer's problem.


Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website:
My .NET blog:
Microsoft MVP (C#) 
Received on Mon Jun 26 2006 - 10:33:38 CEST

Original text of this message