Re: Mixing OO and DB

On 1 mar, 10:24, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail..._at_dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
[Snipped]
> Well, the ongoing discussion between c.o and c.d.t is not / should not be
> about approaches. In question is a descriptive framework in which
> approaches could be evaluated. Evaluating an approach either by naming
> people using it idiots or even by market shares makes no technical sense to
> me. So long no such framework is not agreed on, it is useless to discuss
> "approaches".
You got some nerve trying to ignore the people comments and patience to deal with all the nonsense you have been pourring down here.

That you are an idiot (a fact) is a consequence of the tons of crap you have been pourring down on this thread and your unwillingess to address with intellectual honnesty the questions that have been raised to challenge the vague and obscure arguments you presented .

Using *Approaches* (cookbook approaches) is not the same as dealing with serious theory. Using *Approaches* for whatever that may be is the best sloppy thinkers can rely on to try to make a point. Cultivating vagueness and general rules of thumb in a debate is a good way to divert attention from the main problem here which is your ignorance. So don't blame people here blame yourself...

> As for objects. A notion equivalent to "computational object" will be a
> part of such framework, though not necessarily of a particular approach.
Pfff...*Computational object* Sloppy term for sloppy thinkers...

You would ask 10 different people about what a *computational object* might be and chances are you would get 10 totally different answers...

> Thus, no, computational objects are universal.
What is universal here is the stupidity you demonstrated. This is vague and meaningless. If you have anything more meaningful to add, I suggest you stop spamming this thread with your nonsense.

> Regards,
> Dmitry A. Kazakovhttp://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
Received on Sat Mar 01 2008 - 11:43:53 CET