Re: Object-relational impedence

Bob Badour wrote:
> topmind wrote:

I think the attributions are messed here, by the way. I didn't write what is being replied to below. Just want to clear up the record.

>
> > Robert Martin wrote:
> >
> >>On 2008-03-14 00:17:40 -0500, frebe <frebe73_at_gmail.com> said:
> >>
> >>>On 13 Mar, 18:40, Robert Martin <uncle..._at_objectmentor.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>The real point of that remark was that the user of a tool is at a
> >>>>higher level of abstraction than the tool itself. �SQL is a tool. �ORMs
> >>>>are tools that use SQL to get their job done, just like compilers use
> >>>>assembly to get their job done. �In that sense ORMs live at a higher
> >>>>level of abstraction than SQL.
> >>>
> >>>Lets have an example: There are many "compiler" products translating
> >>>from a high-level language like ADA to a low-level language like C,
> >>>instead of translating to machine code directly. What if someone wrote
> >>>a "compiler" translating C source code to ADA source code, would that
> >>>make C more high level than ADA? Hardly? The existance of a product
> >>>translating from language A to language B doesn't say anything about
> >>>the levels of A and B.
> >>
> >>That's a good point. The fact that you can write a translator from
> >>A->B does not mean A is higher level than B.
>
> Quite the contrary. In every case of a higher level language B, one can
> write a translator for it in a lower level language A. This is patently
> obvious, because ultimately everything has to translate to machine code,
> which is the lowest-level language of all.

-T- Received on Mon Mar 17 2008 - 05:11:14 CET