Re: OO versus RDB
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 20:41:12 +0200
Message-ID: <44ac07c8$0$31644$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
> Exactly my point. For large, complex applications the benefits far
> outweigh the cost of (1) so there is effectively no decision.
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 20:41:12 +0200
Message-ID: <44ac07c8$0$31644$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
H. S. Lahman wrote:
> Why do you keep bringing up OO?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/complexquestions.html
>>> The benefits are the same benefits one gets from any software >>> modularization: simplifying subject matters; containment, reuse, and >>> -- most relevant for this thread -- context-independence. >> >> , in casu database independence, at the cost of >> 1. if you have dbms: a lesser facade with roll-your-own abstractions. >> 2. if you haven't: a roll-your-own dbms, >> and in both cases modules still fully dependent on the relevant >> part of the conceptual schema (whether it is coded or not, the latter >> being the toughest spot to be in). >> >> Not really a hard decision.
>
> Exactly my point. For large, complex applications the benefits far
> outweigh the cost of (1) so there is effectively no decision.
I am not interested in your cost-calculating paradigm.
> OK, that's it for this thread. Making an incomprehensible statement and
> then asserting that you won't deign to explain what you really meant is
> not a good basis for rational discussion. Ta-ta.
Thanks for making clear how bad the idea is to mask a good abstraction layer with a weaker one.
-- "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it." Chinese Proverb.Received on Wed Jul 05 2006 - 20:41:12 CEST