Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: David Cressey <>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:59:23 GMT
Message-ID: <f7xBj.5373$Mp4.3836_at_trndny02>

"Robert Martin" <> wrote in message news:2008031019283444303-unclebob_at_objectmentorcom...
> On 2008-03-09 01:02:47 -0600, Marshall <> said:
> > On Mar 8, 6:07 pm, Robert Martin <> wrote:
> >> On 2008-03-06 15:37:56 -0600, topmind <> said:
> >>
> >>>> Each small group of classes becomes a little roll-your-own data
> >>>> and manipulation scheme that is perfectly tuned for it's very
> >>>> purpose.
> >>
> >>> Which is over-kill for the task-level.
> >>
> >> Do you have proof that it's overkill? Do you have any objective
> >> measurements that it's overkill? Or it is just your own opinion. I
> >> mean, if it works for you that's great, but don't force your own
> >> opinions on everyone else <grin>
> >
> > This is a fallacious argument. You're proposing extra effort without
> > justification. The idea that, in the absence of evidence either way,
> > topmind's proposal of not putting in that effort is on equal footing
> > with yours doesn't hold. Extra effort requires justification. What
> > you are saying is, "hey, we don't know if this work has any value
> > or not, so doing it is just as justified as not doing it."
> Go back to the root of the argument. You'll see that the initial
> premise is that the programmer organizes the data into a form that is
> more convenient for him to get his computational job done. So there
> *is* justification.

Get his "computational" job done, or get his "programming" job done?

I can't see that the form you are advocating is any better than the alternatives when it comes to getting the computational job done. As the discussion shows, whether it's better at getting the programming job done is, for the most part, in the eye of the beholder. Received on Tue Mar 11 2008 - 15:59:23 CET

Original text of this message