Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox_at_dmitry-kazakov.de>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:53:35 +0100
Message-ID: <ze4gvkqlisw4.1120fup2z6nl0.dlg_at_40tude.net>


On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:04:07 +0100, mAsterdam wrote:

> Ada is one of the languages I hoped to learn,
> but never got around to actually use.
> Does it use (something like) type inference?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_inference 's
> (incomplete) list does not currently include Ada.

No it does not, except some trivial cases. The types equivalence is overwhelmingly named in Ada.

(I don't think that types inference is a good idea, but that is a rant for another day. (:-))

> Yes, we don't want values to mutate.
> Circles and ellipses. Couldn't we keep this can closed for now?

Yes.

> Darren Duncan's work may affect this.
> http://search.cpan.org/dist/Language-MuldisD/

Thanks.  

>>>>>> And, equivalently, you cannot describe
>>>>>> recording in terms of either data or facts.
>>>>> Yep, that's the fate of primitives and semi-primitives.
>>>> In other words being recorded / data is incomputable.
>>> Being recorded - maybe, but data - why not?
>> 
>> For data are [incomputably] recorded [incomputable] facts...

>
> So we can't record facts containing computed data.
> Where did this go wrong?

That things we can compute need not to be recorded. It is here, computed. If you can spell a fact in the formal system you can forget about its meaning. We write Pi and leave the meaning of to the reader. It is a heavy burden for him, but a great relief for us, an abstraction in short.

>>>> Anyway it would be not "I want data, else there is no
>>>> common ground." It would be about the structure of the formal system which
>>>> you wished deploy for what you call data. (Maybe, I could to do it as well,
>>>> but for something having a different name.)
>>> If that what it takes to get rid of the scarequotes, I have no
>>> problem with you calling it something else if there are enough
>>> common associations and isomorphisms - and no blocks.
>>> Do you have a name in mind? Blurk sucks.
>> 
>> Inputs?

>
> No, that won't work. Inputs do not need to be meaningful (have
> values/symbols associated with informal denotations) in order to be
> acceptable to processes. Good enough for IPO, not for IDO.

But why do you insist of meaningfulness? Even informally we deal with a lot of conditionals, uncertain and contradictory facts. Can't you live with "let the input X be meaningful"?

>>>>>>>> Yes, we cannot reason about meaning while staying 
>>>>>>>> within the same formal system.
>>>>>>>> Because you seem to bind data with a meaning (as I do), that immediately
>>>>>>>> kicks the notion of data out of the formal system. So data do not exist
>>>>>>>> there. Which is all my point! No data, nothing to worry about.
>>>>>>> And the result is a hermetic system as useful as solipsism.
>>>>>>> Have some fun there! I'm out waiting until you are bored of it.
>>>>>> OK, I am back on vacation. How are you going to formalize something which
>>>>>> cannot be formalized? (:-))
>>>>> Hey, I am not the one eager to formalize without
>>>>> a proper, shared, informal understanding.
>>>> Neither I am. 
>>> It sure looks that way, even in your post I am replying to now.
>> 
>> I don't insist on formalizing it right now, but I do on that we should keep
>> in mind necessity of doing it in order to be able to sort the mess out. I
>> thought that your remark was about rather temporal aspect. Or do you reject
>> any need of formalization even after certain level of informal
>> understanding?

>
> No, the informal understanding is to prune useless formalisms as early
> as possible (but even 'certain level' is suspect here as it suggests
> measurability).
>
> Reality check, if you will - not marketing.

(:-)) Unfortunately, in our discipline marketing is the reality.

I agree that there exist a lot of close to practically useless formal theories, starting from lambda calculus and ending with formal grammars. Yet I would not dismiss them.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
Received on Sat Feb 16 2008 - 19:53:35 CET

Original text of this message