Re: Mixing OO and DB

rpost wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>> OOP strives to hide dependencies.
(1)
> Nonsense.

(2)

This remark did convey some sense.

Really. I'll try to explain.

OOP developers /do/ strive to hide a lot. Just overzealously applying encapsulation, they try to hide even the stuff their product needs to expose.
An extremely passionate applier of principles might even sacrifice the visibility of dependencies.

It is inappropriate, but understandable if people only learn how to apply, but not when. A lot of contributors to this thread seem to regard their pet formalisms (stemming from a branch of math or OO or DB, or FP practice, folklore or theory - aside: hey I did not see logic programmers; well, most of that crowd know the limitations of Horn clauses) as Universal Truth(UT). They are not.

In order to sensibly discuss mixing OO and DB, we need to understand them both from the /outside/ as well as the principles used within the groups of practicioners.
In order to sensibly discuss mixing these principles, awareness of the borders and limits of their application should be ventilated and acknowledged.

The UT crowds prevent signal coming through by yelling loudly at eachother. They do not try to uncover. They shield their UT from whatever you can imagine.

In short:

About (1):
I don't think that remark is correct.
It does show disrespect.

About (2):
I don't think that remark is correct.
It does show disrespect.

To Dmitry: I am trying to find out if there is a way, I am not trying to be be politically correct here. To remove that suggestion, specially for you, I'll add this: (1) was made by a pompous stalker, really hurting non-believers of his UT; - but I already said something very similar a few years ago .

Now beat that ;-) Received on Sat Feb 23 2008 - 03:02:34 CET