Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 13:32:21 +0100
Message-ID: <47ad9c97$0$85784$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>


Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>

>> Leslie Sanford wrote:
>>
>>> Newsgroups: comp.object, comp.databases.theory
>>> I cringe every time I see a thread crossposted to these two groups.
>>> Good seldomn comes of it. 
>> Do you have an explanation for that?
>>
>> Any ideas except 'the other guys are so stupid'?

>
> Market. Both OO and RDB are technologies with market products on sale.

Let's see if I can play with this using a metaphore.

So are, say, ships and engines (technologies with market products on sale). Both have their own laws.
Designing a motorized boat requires a shared understanding of some of them. There is a market for sailing boats, there is a market for engines wchich can be used in other things than ships. In this thread, we /are/ mixing. Shouldn't there be a market
for motorizing boats and for engines fit for use on a ship?

> Between us we can admit shortcomings and problems, but what if customers
> would hear that? I don't accuse anybody of being hypocritical. Just once
> anybody gets accustomed to doublespeak it becomes difficult for him to
> switch back. It is like being confronted by a salesman in a shop. Relax, we
> aren't to buy anything, just looking around...
>
> P.S. I don't want to appear politically correct.
> IMO comp.object is less
> aggressive than comp.databases.theory. People like topmind and frebe aren't
> excommunicated regardless their propaganda. Does comp.databases.theory have
> such?

This is a c.o politically correct
'the other guys are so stupid' question.

--
What you see depends on where you stand.
Received on Sat Feb 09 2008 - 13:32:21 CET

Original text of this message