Re: Mixing OO and DB
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <12a1c41f-b863-4cd4-9b91-77933b4586af_at_i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On 15 mar, 17:53, rp..._at_pcwin518.campus.tue.nl (rpost) wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> >On Mar 15, 9:08 am, rp..._at_pcwin518.campus.tue.nl (rpost) wrote:
>
> >> That doesn't mean anything to me, until you specify what it means
> >> for something to "mean" something. I want an operational definition.
>
> >If you don't know what meaning is, then if I give you something
> >and say it's a meaning, you won't know what to do with it.
>
> But I just tried to make explicit what I think meaning is,
> meaning to ask you whether you agree. So I don't understand
> this response.
You have made *nothing* explicit. You just burried this thread with
meaningless repetitive babbling. Marshall response is cristal clear
and easy to understand even for somebody who picks up the thread half
way.
You arbitrarily and subjectively decide that meaning = someicanperfectlylivewithoutpolymophicinheritedcoolbehavior(whatever that is) then you assume that this meaning shall be universal. RM allows to establish a rational approximation of *meaning* through a unique and stable combination of constraints over domain of values handled in relation: that is explicit. Such unique combination and stability makes it easier to manipulate/redefine and is more reproductible by programmers that are not burried in your sloppy line of thought.
If you can't make sense out of simple sentences like this, it says how much damage OO illusion has already done on your brain.
> Reinier
Received on Sat Mar 15 2008 - 20:19:37 CET