Re: Mixing OO and DB

Patrick May wrote:
> Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> writes:
> > On Feb 29, 10:12 am, Patrick May <p..._at_spe.com> wrote:
> >> Common Lisp, for example, allows the creation of completely
> >> new language constructs, including flow of control constructs, via
> >> its macro facility. This allows creation of richer DSLs than most
> >> OO languages do.
> >
> > If I am going to take you to task for overbroad claims, I feel some
> > responsibility as well to point out when you are being too
> > modest. Your second sentence quoted above is an understatement to a
> > significant degree.
> >
> > As an aside, I can say from a fair bit of experience that LISPers
> > and Relational folk are among the most ornery around. However when
> > one is debating with a LISPer one at least has the benefit of
> > knowing one is likely arguing with a worthy opponent.
>
> I'm somewhat bemused by the immediate antagonism exhibited by the
> c.d.t. folks towards anyone who thinks that OO is anything other than
> pure snake oil. I was around for the industry transition to OO (I
> probably still have my Zortech C++ manuals somewhere). Most of the
> experienced developers I know and prefer to work with understand the
> costs and benefits of both technologies.
>
> It sounds like some of you from c.d.t. have had to deal with a
> surfeit of Java weenies. I eliminate them early in the hiring process
> with the question "What do you like best about Java and what would you
> change if you could?" Anyone who doesn't spend 90% of his or her
> response time on the second half of the question is out the door.

But nobody agrees on what "good" OOP is or why/if Java is "bad". Good OO is at the end of the rainbow, never under our microscopes.

>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick
>

-T- Received on Sat Mar 01 2008 - 02:47:17 CET