Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <149e7dd6-7e7e-414e-a976-e06d5fce351c@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>


On Mar 7, 2:54 am, Thomas Gagne <tga..._at_wide-open-west.com> wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > <snip>
> > BS. Define *stagnant* and *empty*
>
> Stagnant -- doesn't change.
> Empty -- they're blank cards.

OK I shall follow up your incoherent line of thought (I will regret I know). Then you are claiming that a bunch of 3x5 cards in little drawers at the library *does not change* and are *blank cards* (simply switch the terms you proposed). I have never seen the need to store blank cards in a library and build a system to retrieve one or many of them:they are all equal when blank.

> Both words are pretty common in English.
>
> >> until behavior decides what to write on
> >> them,
>
> > OK behavior *decides*... How can an OO *decide* stuff. Human decides
> > not machines not anything..
>
> Even a competent RDB-er as yourself is familiar with programming
> languages making decisions. I'm sure your experience with SQL must have
> included close brushes with the WHERE clause. That's how users are able
> to discriminate between getting ALL tuples or just the tuples they
> want. "WHERE" clauses are SQL expressions that reflect decisions.
Only poor programmers believe that their language decides stuff for them. Only poor designers do not take the time to set up properly conceptual models to know precisely what inferences ought to be made

> They're not unlike IF-THEN statements in other languages. This is how
> programs decide what to do next based on a condition. For instance:
>
> IF student not familiar with basic programming concepts THEN explain
> control flow using small words.
>
> > <snip>

That's how one shifts from high level view based on predicate to low level procedural approaches based on IF THEN ..and bring us back to 40 years in the past when people had to write down 50 lines of code to fetch one single row in a dataset.

> > The meaning of what's on the card is on the card you idiot.
>
> No, the meaning of what's on the card is in the reader's head.
LOL ...Explain that in the next poker tournament you will get into. Explain to the participants that the 2 of heart that made you lose was in fact an ace because you established the meaning in your head. Fuzzy, fuzzy...My head hurts...

> Perhaps
> maybe even yours. Without an understanding of English the meaning of
> what people write in English is, well, meaningless. Whether the
> consumer is human or machine the meaning of what's written on the card
> depends on the consumer. The 3x5 hasn't a clue what the meaning is,
> although a 3x5 has a purpose (given it by intelligent design)--to
> preserve information inscribed on them. A 3x5 doesn't know the meaning
> of what's written on it--only that something is written on it and it
> shouldn't erase or alter it.> <snip>
Talking about real word perception...In the end it's all gibberish...

> > So now the *behavior* not only *decides* but it also *uses*...What a
> > bunch of crap...
>
> Well, your behavior chose to both USE your computer and DECIDE to be
> abusive and argumentative. A program could be written to mimic that
> behavior but it would have little appeal and even less utility.> <snip>
The term you are looking for is *usefulness* not *utility*. You believe too much in science fiction and artificial intelligence. Computers are simply mechanized systems that make the logical inferences that humans ask them to make. Period.

> >> Even
> >> interactive SQL is a behavior with the business rules originating with
> >> the author and meaning and value determined by the author (of the SQL).
>
> > Here we go. You are trying to create your own sloppy definition of
> > how meaning and information should be established. What are you going
> > to say next ? That RM is inherited from OO...What a bunch of crap...
>
> Was there a constructive comment in there that furthered mutual
> understanding or promoted your argument? Your prejudice and lack of
> reading comprehension is betrayed by your prediction of what I might
> write next. Though you did say something we agree on--that it would be
> nonsense to assert RM is inspired by OM.
Quality is not the same as quantity. Repeating a true thing does not make more true. I do not need to write endless arguments to expose the nonsense you are pourring down.

> >> 3x5 cards also make for a poor web interface.
>
> > And you make a perfect idiot...
>
> Your unwillingness to consider what others write doesn't make them
> idiots--it sentences you to remain willfully ignorant and irrelevant.
I confirm that you are an idiot based on the endless gibberish you are opurring down. Saying more would be a waste of time.

[Snipped Self promoting blah blah] Received on Mon Mar 17 2008 - 06:55:21 CDT

Original text of this message