Re: Object-relational impedence

topmind wrote:

> S Perryman wrote:

TM>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".

Who said "must" ?? Not me, pal.
What is the word for that ... ?? Mis-representation, perhaps.

So getting back to it :

Feel free to "objectively" show us why types *tend* to "rely on similar hierarchical taxonomies (or at least DAG taxonomies)" .

> You misrepresented me. Gee, that's new.

We can always rely on you to kill yourself with your own sword as quickly as the next line of text. You never disappoint (LOL) .

>>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/."

LOL !!! Classic topmind muppetry.

Posting rants to the wrong person altogether. Rather than admitting the embarrassing truth, then tries to selectively edit the entire posting to prevaricate.

So what do we have :

• you are claiming you are writing about something that was *not even present* in my posting
• a rant that *does not even relate* to that text anyway

Funny isn't it, that JOG in his reply had no problems understanding what I was telling him (or replying accordingly) .

So, to send you on your way, you non english-understanding muppet ...

Here is the ref to my posting (in its *entirety* ) to JOG :

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/msg/a25c4a9a21982df6

Please feel free to show us how your silly rant contributes to anything in that posting. Just to help you, there are two points of note in the posting, denoted "1" and "2" .

1 tells JOG *who* invented inheritance in OOP. 2 tells JOG *why* (according to the inventors) inheritance came to be.

>>>Did I say anything objectively wrong?

>>We await your reply to #1 with interest.

Ah, the other classic topmind muppetry : demand something "objective" of someone, but scuttles away quietly into a dark corner when the same is demanded of him.

Steven Perryman Received on Thu Mar 13 2008 - 16:59:33 CET