Re: Object-relational impedence
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:30:56 +0000
On 2008-03-05, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox_at_dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:22:24 +0000, Eric wrote:
>> If you should not use multiple languages, there must be a universal
> Yep, it is called a universal/general purpose programming language.
>> What is it, is it really universal _right now_, and if not,
> It is, there exist many of them.
> The mistake you make is in a wrong presumption that "universal purpose" <=>
> "best possible."
I presume no such thing.
Any program can be written in any language, but particular combinations
may be unwise. Why should I not choose the most appropriate language of
those that are currently available to me?
Any program can be written in any language, but particular combinations may be unwise. Why should I not choose the most appropriate language of those that are currently available to me?
If I bring in an existing API to do some part of the task, why should I care what it is written in as long as I can call it? If it would help me to create an additional abstraction layer (i.e. my own API), why should I not use the most appropriate tool for it? What language do you use, and what is your math library written in?
>> when will it be and what should we do in the meantime?
> Not to develop pet domain-specific languages if the advantages of those are
> unclear. If you, say, wanted to create a declarative language based on
> inference, then that should be a universal purpose one.
E Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 15:30:56 CET