Re: Object-relational impedence

From: S Perryman <>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:43:53 +0000
Message-ID: <frc3ml$t9h$>

topmind wrote:

> S Perryman wrote:

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

For the umpteenth time :


types *tend* to "rely on similar
hierarchical taxonomies (or at least DAG taxonomies)


And for the umpteenth time, feel free to "objectively" show us why your quoted text is true (as opposed to being the rantings of an idiot) .

>>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.

Hang on. You have made a specific claim in your rant about "types" . You cannot support how or why that claim is anything other than rubbish. And then you have the gall to try to blame OO prog language designers as to why you cannot support your claim.

Consider yourself promoted to uber-muppet.

>>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.

  1. Wrong.

Completely unrelated to anything I specifically posted in reply to JOG.

2. Is it true (rhetorical question) ??

>>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.

ROFTLMAO. How can informing someone as to who invented inheritance in OOP, and the reasons why, be "vaguery" ??

Please feel free to tell us.

>>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?

The fact that he can read and understand the English language, and actually track and reply to the correct posting in a Usenet thread. Which you evidently cannot.

So, once again :

On your way, you non english-understanding muppet ... Received on Thu Mar 13 2008 - 21:43:53 CET

Original text of this message