Re: Flash to JOG
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 13, 2:24 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> JOG wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 11:40 am, "David Cressey" <cresse..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
> >>As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that
> >>there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not
> >>always agree with you, put you have commanded a level of respect from us
> >>that makes Perryman's attempt at condescension ludicrous.
> >>You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if
> >>you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck.
> > I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol
> > has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that
> > the OO vanguard (as opposed to the rest of us who just use OO as a
> > necessasry tool) have trouble with the conceptual/logical layer
> > distinction that we all seem to see as bright as day. If nothing else
> > our discussions with comp.oo have made me wonder why there are no
> > programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the
> > concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence.
> Alphora's Dataphor
Rel also looked interesting, and I liked some of the syntax - especially the fact that for relvar datatypes, A + B is the union of A and B, and hence A += B is an insert, etc. Received on Thu Mar 13 2008 - 16:31:23 CET