Re: Objects and Relations

On Feb 10, 1:23 am, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 12:25 am, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
> I shall try to summarise my conjecture...

Then I shall summarize why I do not think you are making a valid point.

>
> 1. For the purposes of building a system using OO and/or RM it is
> useful and meaningful to distinguish entities that are inside versus
> outside the abstract machine.

I do not agree, and see no absolutely no evidence for thinking as such.

>
> 2. OO is inherently about building the abstract machine. Object
> decomposition is about decomposing the machine into smaller objects
> that have identity, state and behaviour defined with respect to the
> abstract machine. The identity and behaviour must not be confused
> with an entity outside the abstract machine. At best an object can
> mimic an external entity in the manner of a simulation. It certainly
> should not be regarded as merely for the purpose of knowledge
> representation because that is in conflict with objects having there
> own independent identity, state and behaviour.

You correctly state here that OO is about behaviour. RM is not. For me that is where any validity in comparisons crumbles.

>
> 3. RM is inherently about recording knowledge about entities outside
> the abstract machine in the form of ground facts or propositions.

Absolutely not - this is wholly incorrect. The principles of Relationaly /Theory/ could equally be applied to recording propositions about external 'entities' such as employees, just as it can record propositions about the current state of such things as a vector of TCP/UDP/etc sockets and the dynamic pool of pthreads handling them. Relational Theory is about recording statements of fact, whatever they concern.

>
> The conjecture is simple yet powerful and therefore should be easy to
> falsify. For example it suggests that RM is a poor choice for string
> processing. It suggests that OO shouldn't be concerned with storing
> knowledge about real employees.

Again this is nonsense imo, primarily because: 1) I see no basis for your statements concerning an internal/external 'entity' distinction.
2) I believe you are making crucial mistake in trying to compare data- oriented and process-oriented mechanisms. Apples with oranges - there is no applicable comparison to be made here. Perhaps if you limited this to structs vs relations there might be some basis of discussion.

>
> These points were clearly stated in the original post. The claims
> are not entirely awe inspiring, revolutionary or heretical. I have
> no idea why this thread has gone on for so long. It all seems rather
> pathetic. It has left a bad taste in my mouth and my opinion of the
> newsgroup has taken a dive. I have little respect for the "cult"
> nature of the group - complete with a so called "gate keeper", the
> lack of intellectual honesty, the repeated insults, the arguments over
> definitions, repeated use of metaphorical argument, repeated use of
> meta-physical argument, general inconsistency, arrogance etc.

While I do not condone personal attacks I cannot agree with your sentiment.

I think rather that the thread going on so long shows that there are likely problems with the logic of the comparisons you make. This combined with the 'fait-accompli' presentation of claims and miscommunication in terminology, well it can be very frustrating to other readers - and that's something one has /got/ to accomodate for in an unmoderated forum.

>
> This has been done to varying degrees by different members of cdt.
> For your part Jim, you have some admirable qualities. I also found
> the discussions with Marshall to be worthwhile.

Imho the line of thinking you have made needs far more thought, research and maturing - but importantly this must always be combined with a willingness to reject it completely if needs must (which I believe itself takes a lot of character - however there is still always value in the process, as it can produce better and more focused ideas).

>
> Anyway, I've come to the conclusion I can do better things with my
> time.
Received on Sun Feb 11 2007 - 02:57:00 CET