Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: JOG <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 01:44:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1ccc8e1a-b645-4bae-b6d8-14563bbaa290_at_e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>


On Feb 8, 8:50 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail..._at_dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> 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.

Although you only have to face the problem of definining what an "object" is if you've conjured that problem in the first place.

> Which is not about clustering some arbitrary set of attributes.

What is it about then? Genuinely interested.

>
> > 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. Kazakovhttp://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
Received on Fri Feb 08 2008 - 10:44:46 CET

Original text of this message