Re: Mixing OO and DB
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:54:59 -0500
Message-ID: <Bpqdnf2TlsTDM03anZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d_at_wideopenwest.com>
Cimode wrote:
> <snip>
> BS. Define *stagnant* and *empty*
>
Stagnant -- doesn't change.
Empty -- they're blank cards.
Both words are pretty common in English.
>
>> until behavior decides what to write on >> them, >>
> OK behavior *decides*... How can an OO *decide* stuff. Human decides
> not machines not anything..
>
Even a competent RDB-er as yourself is familiar with programming languages making decisions. I'm sure your experience with SQL must have included close brushes with the WHERE clause. That's how users are able to discriminate between getting ALL tuples or just the tuples they want. "WHERE" clauses are SQL expressions that reflect decisions.
They're not unlike IF-THEN statements in other languages. This is how programs decide what to do next based on a condition. For instance:
IF student not familiar with basic programming concepts THEN explain control flow using small words.
> <snip>
> The meaning of what's on the card is on the card you idiot.
No, the meaning of what's on the card is in the reader's head. Perhaps
maybe even yours. Without an understanding of English the meaning of
what people write in English is, well, meaningless. Whether the
consumer is human or machine the meaning of what's written on the card
depends on the consumer. The 3x5 hasn't a clue what the meaning is,
although a 3x5 has a purpose (given it by intelligent design)--to
preserve information inscribed on them. A 3x5 doesn't know the meaning
of what's written on it--only that something is written on it and it
shouldn't erase or alter it.
> <snip>
> So now the *behavior* not only *decides* but it also *uses*...What a
> bunch of crap...
>
Well, your behavior chose to both USE your computer and DECIDE to be
abusive and argumentative. A program could be written to mimic that
behavior but it would have little appeal and even less utility.
> <snip>
>
>> 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...
>
Was there a constructive comment in there that furthered mutual understanding or promoted your argument? Your prejudice and lack of reading comprehension is betrayed by your prediction of what I might write next. Though you did say something we agree on--that it would be nonsense to assert RM is inspired by OM.
>
>> 3x5 cards also make for a poor web interface. >>
> And you make a perfect idiot...
>
Your unwillingness to consider what others write doesn't make them idiots--it sentences you to remain willfully ignorant and irrelevant.
-- Visit <http://blogs.instreamco.com/anything.php> to read my rants on technology and the finance industry. Visit <http://tggagne.blogspot.com/> for politics, society and culture.Received on Fri Mar 07 2008 - 03:54:59 CET