Re: Object-relational impedence
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 22:11:19 +0100
>> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:36:50 GMT, David Cressey wrote: >> >>> "Roy Hann" <specially_at_processed.almost.meat> wrote in message >>> news:zpSdnSj5fPTYqVHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d_at_pipex.net... >> >>>> 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... (:-))
-- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.deReceived on Mon Mar 03 2008 - 22:11:19 CET