Re: OO versus RDB

From: Gene Wirchenko <genew_at_ucantrade.com.NOTHERE>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:12:07 -0700
Message-ID: <9418b25m9rkddphp0hf6uo8330jd4n39iv_at_4ax.com>


On 11 Jul 2006 09:25:21 -0700, "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On 9 Jul 2006 16:47:40 -0700, "Tony D" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Aside from 'printf("hello, world\n")' being a procedure call rather
>> >than a function (that a value is left lying in a register was, at least
>> >initially, just a happy (or otherwise) accident of the way C was
>> >implemented), if we assumed that the return value of printf() was some
>> >integer, then the emergence of text on an output device would be
>> >considered a side effect of obtaining the return value.
>>
>> The return value of printf() *is* an int. That is that way it is
>> defined.
>
>That's valid. The point in my mind, though, is whether we are really
>going to say that getting that int was the primary reason we decided
>to call printf, and it is only a side effect that it does some output?
>
>In fact, let's imagine we write a function with the same signature
>as printf except that it returns void. Now it seems even more
>bizarre to call the output a "side" effect.
>
>Sometimes output is the whole point. Sometimes it is a side effect.
>We don't seem to have a conceptual model that can tell the
>difference.

     Which effect do you want most? All of the others are side-effects.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko Received on Tue Jul 11 2006 - 22:12:07 CEST

Original text of this message