Re: Mixing OO and DB
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:50:17 +0100
Message-ID: <16ra0gvfwx6rf.1ipt9e7hhda4k$.dlg_at_40tude.net>
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:15:53 -0800 (PST), Tegiri Nenashi wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2:04 pm, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail..._at_dmitry-kazakov.de>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:00:15 -0800 (PST), Tegiri Nenashi wrote:
>>> I suggest that OO ideas are too naive to continue influence
>>> programming. Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) is much more theoretically
>>> sound method how to organize things into taxonomies.
>>
>> Sorry, but the idea of subsets used in place of subtypes far surpasses in
>> naiveness anything one could charge "naive OO" with.
>
> Are you referring to apparent object propelleheads unability to even
> coherently define what the object/type is?
At least they try to face the problem. Which is not about clustering some arbitrary set of attributes.
> Then, the ability to
> operate a concept without defining it is certainly a sign of
> superiority of your method.
Certainly a notion of type can be given with all necessary rigorousness. The only question is how useful a particular definition is in the context of software design (correctness, maintenance, complexity, non-functional constraints).
P.S. Plucked chicken is not yet a man (remembering a two thousand year old anecdote).
-- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.deReceived on Fri Feb 08 2008 - 09:50:17 CET