Re: Object-relational impedence

S Perryman wrote:
> 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 :
> >>
> >><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.
>
> 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.

Can you demonstrate a type cycle (circular reference) allowed in C?

>
> 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" .

I never claimed "required". You are putting words in my mouth.

>
>
> 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.

That still would not make it "off topic".

>
> 2. You have not been able to show us anything in my posting that is
> "vaguery" (surprise surprise) .

It wouldn't do any good if I did. Delusional people are usually not fixable.

>
>
> 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

Speaking of shameful record, were you the one who claimed a p/r version of the publications exampled would have to have a "combinatorial explosion", which you failed to prove and tried to change the subject? Or was that lameman? I get the two of you mixed up.

>
>
> Regards,
> Steven Perryman

-T- Received on Fri Mar 14 2008 - 16:11:31 CET