Re: Object-relational impedence

On 16 mar, 16:52, S Perryman <q..._at_q.com> wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > On Mar 16, 10:47 am, S Perryman <q..._at_q.com> wrote:
> >>Marshall wrote:
> > [Snipped]
> >>Abstraction of the physical enviroment has been a fundamental concept
> >>in CS for aeons.
> > *Abstraction of the physical envirmoment.* What a bunch of crap
> > Pfff...
> > Talking about *abstraction of the physical* is like talking about the
> > humidity of sand grains in the desert.
> > The two concepts are totally contradictory for anybody can reason
> > abstractly (someone like you)
> > As Dijskra states;
>
> Perhaps even Dijkstra himself said this.
He certainly did moron, just goggle and confirm...If your febrile mind can type his complicated name...

> > *CS is as much about computers then Astronomy is about telescopes*
He also said that OO is such a poor idea that it could have come only from California...He had nothing but disdain for OO babbling...

> Astronomy without telescopes is merely staring into the night sky.
> CS without computers is merely pure mathematics.
What an arrogant bastard. You think you are smart enough to complete Dijkra line of thought. You are nothing but a moron.

> For each, not that much advances are/were made in the former without
> the latter.
Blah blah...The debate here is not about whether or not abstraction exists by itself but whether or not you can draw abstraction from low level thinking... What an idiot can't even make the difference between the two debates...You are pathetic...

> I think the phrase you're looking for to describe your foolishness is ...
> Pffff.
Has to copy even the *Pfff*.

> Regards,
> Steven Perryman
Received on Sun Mar 16 2008 - 21:34:23 CET