Re: Object-relational impedence

S Perryman wrote:
> 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.

Let me rephrase the question. What SPECIFICLY did I say about "types" that is objectively wrong?

>
> 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)" .

I don't know "why", for I didn't design the common languages that tend to have dag/tree-based types. You'll have to ask Gosling etc. that.

> >>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.

Even if true, that does not make it "off topic". It's only one reply level away.

> 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

I was trying to guess what you implied. You create vaguery and then blame me when I try to clean it up by paraphrasing you with more precision. Typical.

>
> - 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) .

And this relates to what?

[snapped longer he-said-she-said bickery]

> Steven Perryman

-T- Received on Thu Mar 13 2008 - 20:59:28 CET