Re: Object-relational impedence
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 5, 11:23 pm, Robert Martin <uncle..._at_objectmentor.com> wrote:
> On 2008-03-05 10:16:30 -0600, topmind <topm..._at_technologist.com> said:
> > On Mar 4, 10:52 pm, Robert Martin <uncle..._at_objectmentor.com> wrote:
> >> On 2008-03-03 17:25:48 -0600, topmind <topm..._at_technologist.com> said:
> >>> But I think anybody inspecting both examples will clearly see that my
> >>> version is a lot less total code.
> >> C++ is a pretty wordy language. If I wrote it in Ruby I bet I'd beat
> >> you by a wide margin.
> > I am a skeptical, but you are welcome to try. And, it would probably
> > be the meta features of Ruby that cut it down, not OOP.
> The "meta" features of Ruby *are* OO.
You have a tendency to label everything and everyone as "OO". Plus, doing meta in an OO way is not necessarily more compact than doing meta in a non-OO way.
> Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | email: uncle..._at_objectmentor.com
> Object Mentor Inc. | blog: www.butunclebob.com
> The Agile Transition Experts | web: www.objectmentor.com
> 800-338-6716 |
-T- Received on Fri Mar 14 2008 - 15:57:28 CET