Re: Objects and Relations

From: dawn <>
Date: 8 Feb 2007 11:10:16 -0800
Message-ID: <>

On Feb 8, 11:21 am, Gene Wirchenko <> wrote:
> "David BL" <> wrote:
> [snip]
> >I'm amazed how Bob goes to such trouble to say nothing at all. It is
> That fits you very well. I thought you might have value to
> contribute to this newsgroup, but it appears you simply "raise
> issues".
> [snip]

Don't let Gene's response discourage you. Some people do not like to discuss "issues" when they are raised, but they are certainly free to tune them out. I would rather you discussed it until you found some common ground where you and others could agree or agree to disagree and refine each others thoughts.

For example, even though I disagree with you (in previous postings), I had not before considered how a Stack class and an Employee class were much different. Each models a type of thing, but an instantiation of one actually IS a stack and an instantiation of the other is not an employee but a model of an employee. I haven't figured out why I might care about this and think it completely irrelevant to any discuss of OO compared to RM, but it was instructive none-the-less.

Summary - you are wrong ;-) but definitely free to raise and discuss issues. cheers! --dawn Received on Thu Feb 08 2007 - 20:10:16 CET

Original text of this message