Re: Objects and Relations

JOG wrote:

> On Feb 11, 6:51 pm, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>

>>[snip]
>>It seems entirely immoral to see a set of relations that taken
>>together state facts about both internal and external entities.  It
>>seems quite wrong to mix these levels of abstraction.

This shit is nonsense. Internal and external have very clear and well-defined meanings within our field, and his use of these words has nothing to do with those meanings. David is a self-aggrandizing ignorant making shit up as he goes along.

   For example,

>>what is a problem domain expert going to think of a query result
>>containing "labels" of parts of the abstract machine (eg StringIds)
>>that they don't know about and don't care about?

Where the fuck did StringIds come from? Why the fuck would anyone need an id for a string in the first place? Strings are simply values; they self-identify.

> "Immoral"? My word, that's a desperate appeal indeed.
>
> I have no idea why you think a problem domain expert would be
> concerned with storing strings relationally. I have no idea why you
> are comparing process-oriented and data-oriented practices. And I have
> no idea why you are confusing a mechanism for storing and manipulating
> data, with whether that data is generated from a coder or from the
> outside world. The origin of information is totally irrelevant to the
> principles of good data management.
>
> There is a lot of confusion in your line of thought.

He doesn't care. He is just making shit up as he goes along to try to look good among the ignorant. Why do you keep helping him? Received on Mon Feb 12 2007 - 14:36:00 CET