Re: Object-relational impedence

From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox_at_dmitry-kazakov.de>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:54:07 +0100
Message-ID: <2fr0w4tpoczj.1p6yptfcd3peb.dlg_at_40tude.net>

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 00:21:22 -0600, Robert Martin wrote:

> On 2008-03-05 02:56:02 -0600, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" 
> <mailbox_at_dmitry-kazakov.de> said:
> 

>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 00:46:14 -0600, Robert Martin wrote:
>>

>>> On 2008-03-03 16:49:29 -0600, "David Cressey" <cressey73_at_verizon.net> said:
>>> 
>>>> But the idea of a single language that is suitable for everything remains an
>>>> elusive goal,  and probably an unproductive endeavor.
>>> 
>>> Agreed.

>>
>> Disagreed.
>>
>> The idea of multilingual system is the most damaging thing in software
>> developing history.
>
> Whooo! Then I guess it's back to toggling in binary for us all.

That does not imply.

If you concede that in your system it would be OK to use SQL together with an OOPL X, then your argument of hiding SQL behind the scenes does not work. Because alleged technical merits of SQL should in some way show themselves in the design. That is the DB-guys point. (They go further and propose to scrap X.)

My position is opposite. It is that SQL does not have such merits, it is there only as an interface to a legacy component. If that component had an OOPL X interface I would take it instead. It might appear radical, but in fact this is what all those zillions of language X-to-DBMS-Y bindings are about.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 10:54:07 CET