Re: Object-relational impedence

From: S Perryman <>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:42:37 +0000
Message-ID: <frape9$gr5$>

topmind wrote:

> S Perryman wrote:

TM>"Types" tend to rely on similar hierarchical taxonomies (or at least
TM>DAG taxonomies) that inheritance does, and *suffer similar problems*.
TM>It is difficult to reduce most non-trivial real-world things into such
TM>trees/dags because they generally don't fit such, especially over the
TM>longer run. Even numbers, the poster child of "types", tend to get
TM>ugly if try to create a tree taxonomy with them.  Feature sets are a
TM>more flexible and natural way to represent and manage variations-on-a-
TM>theme. (Disclaimer: I have no objective metrics to measure "more
TM>natural" and "flexible" at the moment.)

>>Your rantings :

>>1. pollute my pleasant experience of recent debate with people who actually
>>    know something about database fundamentals, and have contributions
>>    related to other areas

> Did I say anything objectively wrong?


Types do *not* "rely on similar hierarchical taxonomies (or at least DAG taxonomies)" .

#1 If this is the case, then "objectively" show us why this is so.

>>2. are off-topic rubbish

> I disagree it is "off-topic".

Just to educate you before I send you on your way, you non englishunderstanding  muppet :

JOG made a statement about *who* and *what* made inheritance come to be in OO. I corrected him on both matters.

Please feel free to show us how your silly rant contributes

>>3. demonstrate a complete ignorance of anything relating to type theory in >> programming languages

> Did I say anything objectively wrong?

We await your reply to #1 with interest.

Steven Perryman Received on Thu Mar 13 2008 - 09:42:37 CET

Original text of this message