Re: Mixing OO and DB
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 22:55:27 -0800 (PST)
On Mar 8, 6:08 pm, Robert Martin <uncle..._at_objectmentor.com> wrote:
> On 2008-03-06 02:34:20 -0600, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> said:
> > On Mar 6, 12:06 am, Robert Martin <uncle..._at_objectmentor.com> wrote:
> >> On 2008-03-05 08:33:36 -0600, "David Cressey" <cresse..._at_verizon.net> said:
> >>> All this leads me to claim that data is more fundamental than behavior. Not
> >>> more valid. Just more fundamental. You can have systems that have data but
> >>> no behavior.
> >> If they have no behavior how can they be systems?
> > If your car has no microwave how can it be a vehicle?
> Ah yes! Now I see! <eyes roll>
> > A bunch of 3x5 cards in little drawers at the library is both a system
> > and a database.
> They are indeed a database. It is the way that they are used that is
> the system. Sitting there all alone in the dark with nobody using
> them, they are still a database. They are not a system.
Meh. You suckered me in to an argument that revolves around the meaning of vaguely worded terms. Who cares WTF is a "system" or not? The point is, a card catalog is just data. It exists independently of "behavior", whatever that vaguely worded term is supposed to mean. (My best guess: it's not *supposed* to mean anything all that specific.) And yet it is still useful. Which supports the idea that data is more fundamental.
Marshall Received on Sun Mar 09 2008 - 07:55:27 CET