Re: Object-relational impedence
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:20:45 -0400
Message-ID: <47d31f4f$0$4070$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>>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.)
>>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.
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:20:45 -0400
Message-ID: <47d31f4f$0$4070$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> 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.
That loud whooshing sound you heard was the point travelling effortlessly and at great speed between Cimode's ears. Received on Sun Mar 09 2008 - 00:20:45 CET