Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)

Robert Martin wrote:
> On 2006-07-04 01:24:41 -0500, "topmind" <topmind_at_technologist.com> said:
>
> > But they are mostly interchangable. Which-is-done-where is a fairly
> > arbitrary call. In an extreme case, code is just *data* to an
> > interpreter. And, table-centric solutions actually implement
> > domain-specific interpreter(s) more or less, so the analogy is not that
> > far off.
>
> I don't disagree with that. However, I'll refer you back to a recent
> post by Fredrick who re-invented dynamic dispatch within a database
> language so that he could appropriately decouple the payroll
> application. The point is that if you treat the data as instructions,
> then you will eventually come of with the notion of pointers or
> references to those instructions. From there it's a short hop to
> dynamic polymorphism, which leads right back to objects.

Navigational structures and relational structures can be representationally equivelent. No argument there. I just find more consistency and discipline in relational. I can find my way around better and transform the view of stuff to fit the way *I* want to see it better. It lets me be a primadona. (I agree that existing RDBMS vendors don't offer enough dynamicy and meta abilities, but that is an implementation detail.)

When you formulate some better "navigational maths", let me know. Until then, I'll stick with relational.

>
> --
> Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | email: unclebob_at_objectmentor.com

-T- Received on Thu Jul 06 2006 - 19:30:59 CEST