Re: Mixing OO and DB
From: Robert Martin <unclebob_at_objectmentor.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:23:14 -0600
Message-ID: <2008021810231450073-unclebob_at_objectmentorcom>
>
> Just butting in here, but I wanted to say that this is exactly the
> sort of complexity that makes me convinced that this whole
> main branch of programming language design is a dead end.
> Who needs all this co-variant/contra-variant, subtyping is
> not subsetting craziness? How does this help the working
> programmer get his code written?
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:23:14 -0600
Message-ID: <2008021810231450073-unclebob_at_objectmentorcom>
On 2008-02-15 19:54:54 -0600, Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> said:
> On Feb 15, 5:45 pm, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> >> I hope you are remembering in this discussion that I expect an OO >> language to support at least two distinct notions of subtype. One >> centres on substitutability of values and the other on >> substitutability of objects. I'm reticent to say variable instead of >> object because some people assume (by definition) variable represents >> a value.
>
> Just butting in here, but I wanted to say that this is exactly the
> sort of complexity that makes me convinced that this whole
> main branch of programming language design is a dead end.
> Who needs all this co-variant/contra-variant, subtyping is
> not subsetting craziness? How does this help the working
> programmer get his code written?
It gives them tools, and conceptual frameworks, that help them organize their solutions. If we did not think through things like this, we'd still all be writing monolithic fortran programs.
-- Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | email: unclebob_at_objectmentor.com Object Mentor Inc. | blog: www.butunclebob.com The Agile Transition Experts | web: www.objectmentor.com 800-338-6716 |Received on Mon Feb 18 2008 - 17:23:14 CET