Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: Cimode <>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:30:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Mar 6, 3:14 pm, Thomas Gagne <> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > <snip>
> > A bunch of 3x5 cards in little drawers at the library is both a system
> > and a database.
> But they're stagnant and empty
BS. Define *stagnant* and *empty*

> until behavior decides what to write on
> them,

OK behavior *decides*... How can an OO *decide* stuff. Human decides not machines not anything..

> when to write on them,

> the meaning of what's written on them, and
The meaning of what's on the card is on the card you idiot. Using sloppy concepts such as

> ultimately uses them.
So now the *behavior* not only *decides* but it also *uses*...What a bunch of crap...

> Without behavior they're useless.
No. Your line of thought is useless...

> Even
> interactive SQL is a behavior with the business rules originating with
> the author and meaning and value determined by the author (of the SQL).
Here we go. You are trying to create your own sloppy definition of how meaning and information should be established. What are you going to say next ? That RM is inherited from OO...What a bunch of crap...

> 3x5 cards also make for a poor web interface.
And you make a perfect idiot...

You have written so much nonsense in this thread that my ear hurts...

> Visit <> to read
> my rants on technology and the finance industry. Visit
> <> for politics, society and culture.
Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 20:30:28 CET

Original text of this message