Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox_at_dmitry-kazakov.de>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:29:52 +0100
Message-ID: <1xc5mlvie2m0e.1naf2ovae5mk9.dlg_at_40tude.net>


On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 01:44:46 -0800 (PST), JOG wrote:

> 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.

Much confusion arise from mixing domain and solution spaces when talking about "objects." Otherwise I see nothing impossible neither in defining "object" as a language term nor in doing so in the corresponding problem domain. One should just remember that they are different beasts.

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

>
> What is it about then? Genuinely interested.

It is about software design. Assuming that to design software is to cluster a set of all possible programs into the categories "does-the-thing", "does-other-thing" is funny, at least.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
Received on Fri Feb 08 2008 - 12:29:52 CET

Original text of this message