Re: Object-relational impedence

From: S Perryman <>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:09:29 +0000
Message-ID: <frdit6$7p4$>

topmind wrote:

> S Perryman wrote:

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

>>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.

Here are some very popular prog langs for the following arenas :

commercial, general-purpose, Internet, safety-critical

The prog langs : COBOL, C, Javascript, Ada(83)

Which of them rely on "trees or DAGS for type matching and equivalency detection" ??

None. QED.

Additionally, you exposed your (previously indicated) ignorance about the fundamentals of type theory. For type matching is always done on the basis of type *name* and/or *structure* .

Neither of which require "trees or DAGs" .

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

>>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.

  1. Yes, in response to a *completely different* discussion.
  2. You have not been able to show us anything in my posting that is "vaguery" (surprise surprise) .

Once again, you have suffered a 'typing Tourettes' attack, but couldn't even direct it to a vaguely relevant posting in the debate.

It is has been most amusing watching you squirm like an impaled worm on yet another episode of your muppetry. And as always, Usenet archives record them for posterity

Steven Perryman Received on Fri Mar 14 2008 - 11:09:29 CET

Original text of this message