Re: Objects and Relations
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