Re: Object-relational impedence

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:23:49 -0300
Message-ID: <47de62d9$0$4055$>

topmind wrote:

> On Mar 16, 7:55 pm, Bob Badour <> wrote:

>>topmind wrote:
>>>Robert Martin wrote:
>>>>On 2008-03-14 00:17:40 -0500, frebe <> said:
>>>>>On 13 Mar, 18:40, Robert Martin <> 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. On the other hand, when A
>>>>*truly is* higher level than B, there is a lot of leverage to be gained
>>>>by using A instead of B. That kind of leverage is cost effective and
>>>>attracts users. More and more people start using A as opposed to B. B
>>>>falls into less and less use. In the end, while everyone else is off
>>>>gaining the leverage of A, B is defended by a group of die-hards who
>>>>demand that all this A nonsense is foolish, and stupid, and who bemoan
>>>>the fact that nobody truly understands the purity of essense of B.
>>Martin is a fucking retard. Well, I take that back. I don't want to
>>offend anyone with Down's Syndrome.
>>>>>If a RDBMS product is implemented using an OOPL, does that make
>>>>>relational algebra more high level than OO?
>>>>Yes. I think this is obvious on the face of it. RDBs are a much
>>>>higher level concept than Java, or C++, or OO in general. OO is *code*.
>>>>On the other hand, ORMs are higher level than RDBs (not better .. level
>>>>is not a value judgement) because ORMs make use of RDBs in order to
>>>>achieve a specific intent.
>>>Can you prove/demonstrate this rather than claim it?
>>His assertion is absurd on its face. Why do you continue to elevate his
>>bullshit? It's not worthy of response.
> I'm trying to figure out how the OO mind ticks.  It's like trying to
> figure out the psychology of Go To defenders. (I never met one, they
> retired just before I got there.)

You are not addressing OO minds. You are addressing self-aggrandizing ignorants. In past times, they would have sold snake oil.

There's nothing to see there. Received on Mon Mar 17 2008 - 13:23:49 CET

Original text of this message