Re: Object-relational impedence

From: S Perryman <>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:50:41 +0000
Message-ID: <fredtv$4ni$>

topmind wrote:

> S Perryman wrote:

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

TM>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?

For what purpose ??

The definition or use of such a type does not "rely on trees or DAGS for type matching and equivalency detection" .

>>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.

Feel free to show us how/why :

"type matching and equivalency detection" "tend to rely on similar hierarchical taxonomies (or at least DAG taxonomies)" .

>>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.

Of course it would. For the sake of other people, and Usenet archive posterity at least.

But tis a convenient excuse *not* to have your claims scrutinised, is it not.

> Delusional people are usually not fixable.

Good of you to own up to that mental defect that you suffer.

>>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.

Did you actually manage to understand your own "solution" well enough to be able to show what it outputs with the required input data (ie provide a functional equivalent of the type substitutabilty example as was defined on day 1) ??

If so, and you can demonstrate so to me, I am only too happy to resume that particular debate and show you the combinatorial problem inherent in your "solution" .

If not, *shame on you* for prevaricating (and wasting Usenet resource) , in order to avoid admitting (again) insufficient understanding of english to do the things asked of you.

Steven Perryman Received on Fri Mar 14 2008 - 18:50:41 CET

Original text of this message