Re: Mixing OO and DB
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?
>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> 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.
-- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.deReceived on Sat Feb 16 2008 - 19:53:35 CET