Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:09:22 -0400
Message-ID: <47c83c44$0$4069$>

Marshall wrote:
> On Feb 29, 4:10 am, "David Cressey" <> wrote:

>>"Marshall" <> wrote in message
>>>On Feb 28, 2:37 pm, Patrick May <> wrote:
>>>>Tegiri Nenashi <> writes:
>>>>>>     For one thing, it decouples the application code and the
>>>>>>database schema.  For another, as noted by Mr. Martin, it allows
>>>>>>the creation of a domain specific language that better reflects the
>>>>>>concepts in the problem and solution domains.
>>>>>Sure Mr. Martin is working on a "domain specific language" that
>>>>>would put SQL to shame?
>>>>     Do you consider SQL to be the best possible language for all
>>>>problem and solution domains?
>>>Certainly not. SQL is only good for data management.
>>Can you help me out here, Marshall?  My first take on your comment was that
>>it was sarcasm.  But then I thought that maybe you're not being sarcastic,
>>and there's a serious thought here.  I've always considered you a serious
>>participant in the newsgroup.

> My comment was intended to have some bite, but
> the bite wasn't of a sarcastic nature.
> Coding in desktop applications, enterprise application, or
> web applications of most sorts is only about 80-90%
> data management, or that subset of computation that
> is well-handled in a purely relational manner.
>>I remember back when I first started reading you in cdt.  You were, by your
>>own assessment, somewhat ignorant about data management at that time,  a
>>"purebred programmer in recovery" in my words.

> That is an accurate assessment, I would say. I had about 20 years
> of C, C++, Java coding experience before I began to notice
> that SQL was worth my attention. And I had virtually no study
> of formal methods up to then. I have worked hard to rectify both
> failings since.
>>My question is,  "aside from data management,  what else is there?"

> Heavy duty computation. There are algorithms that cannot be
> written relationally, but that can be written with a general purpose
> programming language, such as OCaml or Haskell. (Or,
> if you are stuck, Java or C++ or Python. :-) I say that as
> a Java programmer.)
> What would really be ideal is a general relational system with
> an associated Turing-complete functional language embedded.
> So one could do the 80-90% part in a pure declarative/algebraic
> way, and the hardcore stuff recursively. Of course most
> programmers trained only on what's popular today would
> recoil from such a thing, the same way kids who have only
> eaten at McDonald's will retch at fine Italian food.

I have never heard of that happening. However, a friend of mine, who grew up eating fine Italian food, wretched the first time he at Kraft Dinner. He was 18 or so at the time. Received on Fri Feb 29 2008 - 18:09:22 CET

Original text of this message