Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: mAsterdam <>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:37:46 +0100
Message-ID: <47d5b7ff$0$14359$>

David Cressey wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:

>> Brian Selzer wrote:
>>> Patrick May wrote:
>>>> Brian Selzer writes:
>>>>> Patrick May wrote:
>>>> ... decoupling the application logic from the database schema.
>>> I don't agree with this.  You're equating the database schema with
>>> the database implementation.  The schema specifies what information
>>> is to be and can be recorded.  As such the schema is an integral
>>> part of the application specification, and it cannot be decoupled,
>>> but that doesn't mean that the database implementation cannot. 
>>> The schema does not specify how information is physically 
>>> recorded, nor does it specify the process by which the
>>> recording takes place.
>> The failure to make this distinction (what vs how with regard to
>> data) would score high on a hypothetical top ten of 'misconceptions
>> to get rid of a.s.a.p. - for DB beginners with an OO background'.

> It's unnecessary to single out OO programmers for this comment.

My bad. s/OO/programming/

> Back in the mid 1980s, I taught Rdb/VMS courses to DEC
> customers and software specialists (after learning it myself).
> The programmers I taught were generally from a COBOL, BASIC,
> FORTRAN, or C background, and not from an OO background.
> The distinction between "what" and "how" was just as novel to
> them as it is today for the OO programmer.

Maybe the programmers from big burocratic teams have a slight advantage here; however ..

> The "what" versus "how" distinction can be generalized from database query
> languages to cover just about any aspect of computing.

.. overzealously applying /this/ distinction as a matter of principle leads to moronic red-tape "methodologies".

> Even the difference
> batween machine language and assembler can be discussed in terms of "what"
> vs "how", although not completely.

What you see depends on where you stand.
Received on Mon Mar 10 2008 - 23:37:46 CET

Original text of this message