Re: Object-relational impedence

Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 6 mar, 22:20, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
>> Cimode <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>[Snipped]
>> Nope. Most assembler instructions translate to one machine
>> instruction each. That is the mapping that is being referred to. It
>> is not perfect as there are pseudo-ops and macros, but it holds in
>> general.
>So ? I am not blaming the *mapping* but rather the entire sloppy
>reasonning behind. (Water has oxygen, we breethe oxygen, therefore we
>could breethe water.)

     Your complaint about mapping was:
"What is mapping 1:1 between machine code and assembler. Tis the first time I hear somebody establishing cardinality between 2 languages. What a bunch of crap."

     I replied to that.

>Do you think that the fact a physical *mov* is physicaly matching an
>ram adress memory content the content of another is sufficient to
>state an overgeneralized and simplyistic conclusion that
>
>* just as assembler "mismatches" objects
> so objects "mismatch" relations *
>
>Nothing but an simplyistic attempt to draw a vague abstract from a
>physical behavior when using assembler.

     I can not parse the above.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.