Re: OO versus RDB

From: Cimode <>
Date: 9 Jul 2006 09:36:22 -0700
Message-ID: <>

I will code, I will code, I will code...I don't know why BUT..... I will code, I will code, I will code...
I code wrong? That's fine BECAUSE I will code, I will code, I will code, I will code...
values are functions are procedures....WHO CARES!!!! I will code I will code I will code....
Network OO mappingo model is the cream of the crop CAUSE I will code, I will code, I will code

(Lyrics for next blockbuster tune bought and implemented by million untalented programmers). You are just trying you teach pigs how to dance...What a waste of time...

Tony D wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > Daniel Parker wrote:
> > >
> > > I think what I would like to have is a hybrid language, that would
> > > allow me to implement a function with imperative techniques, permitting
> > > mutable data structures for building immutable objects, aka
> > > StringBuffer/String in Java, and a pure functional higher view. Does
> > > that sound sensible? Or stupid?
> >
> > Sounds exactly right. Functional by default, imperative when necessary.
> >
> Sounds like a horror; the best of neither world.
> > It's also entirely possible (as I think you're implying) to have a language
> > that allowed one to write a function that is "pure" (in that its outputs
> > depend solely on its parameters) but whose implementation was
> > imperative. The functional guys *hate* it when I point this out. :-)
> >
> I don't see why; it's a trivial observation. You can write pure
> functions in Pascal or C, after all. All it takes is a little
> discipline.
> > There might even be type system support for distinguishing pure functions.
> >
> To what end ? And even then, I doubt it; this would be a job for some
> kind of abstract interpretation, which, since you've allowed side
> effects and referentially opaque subroutines, becomes a non-trivial
> pursuit.
Received on Sun Jul 09 2006 - 18:36:22 CEST

Original text of this message