Re: OO versus RDB
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:14:51 GMT
Message-ID: <%Farg.7071$pu3.157824_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
topmind wrote:
>>topmind wrote: >> >>>>That is, persistence is something outside the >>>>realm where objects behave. No behaviour, no objects.
>
> For the record, I did not write the above. It sorta looks like it is
> quoting me.
I know. I note that it would look less like that if you had kept the attributions intact in the first place.
>>topmind, if you are going to engage the self-aggrandizing ignorants, >>please call them on the most substantive and obvious arguments against >>their horse[bleep].
>
> There is no consensus definition of OO. Thus, I try to focus on the
> utility of OO (or lack of) rather than definitions if possible.
The lack of definition cuts right to the heart of utility. The lack of definition is also the chief enabler of the self-aggrandizing ignorants because they can say just about anything leaving it to the listener to make sense of it. (Humans have evolved to make sense of nonsense, which makes most listeners vulnerable.)
The
> definition of "persistence" is kinda fuzzy too. The duration of
> something can be measured on a continuous scale.
I agree. Having worked with a lot of programmers, I have noticed that the least able tend not to control scope or persistence of variables, which takes a program with excessive state and makes it much, much worse. Having a static variable or an instance variable where an automatic variable would do increases persistence; even though, this has nothing to do with saving state in non-volatile storage. Received on Thu Jul 06 2006 - 18:14:51 CEST