Re: Object-relational impedence

From: topmind <>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>

S Perryman wrote:
> 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?
> Yes.
> Types do *not* "rely on similar hierarchical taxonomies (or at least
> DAG taxonomies)" .

I never said they "must", only "tend to". You misrepresented me. Gee, that's new.

> >>2. are off-topic rubbish
> > I disagree it is "off-topic".
> Just to educate you before I send you on your way, you non english-
> understanding muppet :

"Muppet"? You're weird.

> 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

This is where "types" were mentioned:

> 2. Devised because of the influence of academic work on data types (Hoares'
> "record" types) , and noticing things having related properties/behaviours
> in simulation systems.

And in the message just before that, JOG stated:

"What I am questioning whether we
need the concept of inheritance /whatsoever/."

> >>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

-T- Received on Thu Mar 13 2008 - 16:30:40 CET

Original text of this message