Re: Object-relational impedence

From: Joe Thurbon <>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:59:40 GMT
Message-ID: <MZqBj.24427$>

Marshall wrote:
> On Mar 10, 8:55 pm, Joe Thurbon <> wrote:
>> Marshall wrote:


> I immediately hop out
> just seconds before missiles destroy the 'hog and
> the other two guys, but I made it out in time and
> scored.


> I play under the tag "Natural Join".

I used to play Bolo. I played as Fetid Dingo's Kidney. My play was no better than my name.


>> But before you fatigue completely from the thread:
>> Upthread, you mentioned you had gone to some length to use most strictly
>> defined modern type system terminology. I don't suppose you have a cite
>> for some of it? I'm clearly out of date.


Thanks for that. I'll have a look.

> Pierce seems to be the guy everyone's citing these days,
> at least for definitions and pithy summaries of the field.

>> I tend to think of typing systems as falling somewhere on a
>> four-dimensional space with the axes:
>>    Latent/Manifest
>>    Structural/Nominal
>>    Static/Dynamic
>>    Strong/Weak

> Well, strong/weak has been deprecated pretty hard.

Not hard enough, I think (and I say that not knowing how hard you mean.)  From my perspective, weak only really ever seemed to have assembly and C in it, anyway.

> There's
> this term "safe" now, to describe what C isn't.

That was 'strong' for me.

> "Latent" seems
> to mostly be a synonym for "dynamic" now.

Oh. Wow. I used "latent" for things like Ocaml, where types are inferred, as well as things like Ruby where references are un-typed but objects are typed.

> There's also the "explicitly annotated" term,
 > to describe what languages like C++ and Java are, and OCaml and  > Haskell aren't.

My "manifest".


>> I wonder just how out of date I am....

> If you understand structural vs. nominal, you're way ahead
> of most people.


Anyway, back to my personal Java hell ...

Joe Received on Tue Mar 11 2008 - 08:59:40 CET

Original text of this message