Re: Object-relational impedence

From: topmind <topmind_at_technologist.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7102382a-b3fb-455a-b16a-80d91b8cd114_at_s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>


S Perryman wrote:
> 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 :
>
> <quote>
>
> types *tend* to "rely on similar
> hierarchical taxonomies (or at least DAG taxonomies)

How many popular languages can you name that DON'T rely on trees or DAGS for type matching and equivalency detection?

And that claim is not about types, but rather *usage* of types.

> >>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.

Either way "off topic" is an exaggeration. Don't be a Drama Queen.

[el snippo]

>
>
> 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.

I was addressing the issue raised by non-me of the utility of inheritance, not its invention. I don't care if Kermit the Frog invented it.

-T- Received on Fri Mar 14 2008 - 00:59:33 CET

Original text of this message