Re: Object-relational impedence

On Mar 9, 2:23 am, Robert Martin <uncle..._at_objectmentor.com> wrote:
> On 2008-03-06 06:37:19 -0600, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> said:
>
> > On Mar 6, 6:26 am, Robert Martin <uncle..._at_objectmentor.com> wrote:
> >> That's not inferrence.
>
> > Well that all jolly-well looks like inference to me.
>
> I agree that you can infer what elements a subclass has by knowing the
> elements of the base class.

Well then you have conceded defeat, given our conversation has gone as follows:

jog: "So why not treat all 'inheritance' in this way [as inference]?" Robert: "Because all inheritance is not about inference." jog: show me an example when it is not.
Robert: I'll ignore that, and just describe the OO mechanism again. jog: Look, here is how everything you have listed could have been described through inference
Robert: Ok, I agree that all inheritance can be described via inference.

I guess we are done, your objection having been overcome.

> However, that's YOU making the inferrence.

This was a non-sequitur. I think because of your OO focus you haven't recognized that (in this case) there is a danger of putting the cart before the horse. Logic first, mechanism second, not t'other way around. Regards, J.

> The inheritance itself is the redeclaration of variables and
> functions of the base to the (sub)scope of the derived class.
>
> --
> Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | email: uncle..._at_objectmentor.com
> Object Mentor Inc. | blog: www.butunclebob.com
> The Agile Transition Experts | web: www.objectmentor.com
> 800-338-6716 |
Received on Sun Mar 09 2008 - 04:39:37 CET