Re: Object-relational impedence

Cimode wrote:

> On 16 mar, 16:52, S Perryman <q..._at_q.com> wrote:

SP>Abstraction of the physical enviroment has been a fundamental concept SP>in CS for aeons.

C>*Abstraction of the physical envirmoment.*  What a bunch of crap
C>Pfff...
C>Talking about *abstraction of the physical* is like talking about the
C>humidity of sand grains in the desert.
C>The two concepts are totally contradictory for anybody can reason
C>abstractly (someone like you)
C>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...

I can (the joke is obviously beyond you) . Obviously you cannot. Would be a bit embarrassing if you were to (say) critici*s*e someone for spelling mistakes would it not (oops - too late) .

C>*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...

Yes, it would certainly appear to be the case for babbling from the *USA* .

Of course, for the actual creators of OOP (who came from *Norway* ) , he appeared to have a lot of respect for them (even co-authored a book with one of them) .

>>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.

I merely showed how your attempt to use one line from some Dijkstra writing as a "sound-bite" and "appeal to authority" , has left you looking like a fool.

>>I think the phrase you're looking for to describe your foolishness is ... >>Pffff.

> Has to copy even the *Pfff*.

Really, are you Topmind in disguise ??

Regards,
Steven Perryman Received on Sun Mar 16 2008 - 21:58:05 CET