Re: Object-relational impedence

From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 22:11:19 +0100
Message-ID: <1jtzqfhrp1oi3.m7s4a9g376n3$>

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:44:07 -0800 (PST), topmind wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:36:50 GMT, David Cressey wrote:
>>> "Roy Hann" <specially_at_processed.almost.meat> wrote in message
>>>> I completely, 100% agree with that.  Code is evil.
>>> It appears,  from reading c.o., that OO people regard data structures as
>>> evil.
>> Right, the structure of data would be too low-level to be able to capture
>> behavior. As in mathematics, in OO the internal structure of objects is
>> irrelevant and when considered, then only as an implementation detail to be
>> abstracted away. OO deals with the structures of sets of objects exposing
>> same behavior and relations between such sets.

> This is misleading. An association between object A and object B does
> NOT go away just because it is managed via accessors.

Associations are not managed via links. There are no strings tying the numbers 1 (object A) and 2 (object B).

But I guess you probably meant a data structure called "linked list". Please note: _data structure_. Watch out, you fall into heresy, dear topmind!

> OOP not only
> doesn't get one away from dealing with things as "structures", but
> uses structures that were discredited in late 60's.

How can anybody discredit a data structure? Recently I was taught by our c.d.t. colleges that data are recorded facts. You didn't object them. So, may I humble ask you, who and how could discredit facts? (outside Usenet discussion forums, I mean... (:-))

Dmitry A. Kazakov
Received on Mon Mar 03 2008 - 22:11:19 CET

Original text of this message