Re: Objects and Relations

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:31:27 GMT
Message-ID: <zzOzh.5362$R71.80440_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>


JOG wrote:

> 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.

You discount the manipulation and integrity functions too readily.

>>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.

He is making shit up as he goes along. The best thing to do is ignore him.

>>These points were clearly stated in the original post. The claims >>are not entirely awe inspiring, revolutionary or heretical.

He's got that right. The claims are not particularly anything including noteworthy.

    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.

If he doesn't like those things, he should stop initiating them.

> 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.

It went on so long because you kept feeding the troll, Jim.

I sincerely hope you take my other suggestions to heart. I would like to see more of the sort of content that Vadim and Marshall generate when they are playing with the math. You have mentioned teaching. I hope you find a way to produce educated students proofed against some of the nonsense they will see.

>>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.

Hear! Hear! Received on Mon Feb 12 2007 - 01:31:27 CET

Original text of this message