Re: Mixing OO and DB

[Quoted] On Feb 29, 5:18 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> andrew queisser wrote:
> > "Patrick May" <p..._at_spe.com> wrote in messagenews:m2fxvb1gcn.fsf_at_spe.com...
>
> >>Marshall <marshall.spi..._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.
>
> >>Regards,
>
> >>Patrick
>
> > People who refer to Codd as Dr. Codd should also be viewed with suspicion.
>
> I tend to agree that Codd showed the same sort of genius as Einstein,
> and as such should receive the same sort of honorific in that his name
> stands alone. Ditto for Dijkstra, Hoare, Wirth etc.
>
> However, I don't know that refering to Codd as Dr. Codd is all that
> suspicious.

I think it was a joke.

-T- Received on Sat Mar 01 2008 - 03:13:21 CET