Re: Real World (Re: Mixing OO and DB)

From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:28:57 +0100
Message-ID: <gkb6wst899fv$>

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT), topmind wrote:

> On Mar 17, 2:19 pm, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <>
> wrote:

>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:43:45 -0700 (PDT), topmind wrote:
>>> rpost wrote:
>>>> OK, it's partly abstract and intangible, but in the end money buys
>>>> you food, laws can make people go to jail, etc.
>>> Yes, abstract ideas can *result* in tangible results. Al Kiida belief
>>> that the dude upstairs will reward them with wine, women, and song for
>>> twisted martyrdom is an abstract idea; but the result was planes
>>> smashing into NY buildings.
>> On the contrary, these people have quite concrete ideas, about good, evil,
>> means and ends. It is for you God is an abstract idea, for them he and his
>> will is *data*, recorded facts...
> So if I pray to the Relational God? (As in "Coddammit!")...

You are free to do so. More abstract it is, less influence it has on the others. Unfortunately the Relational God is quite concrete. It has money thirsty idols (RDBMS). Not that people (customers) much believe in it. Just following the Pascal's Wager principle they could require us to pay tribute to the idols of the Relational God (to install a RDB) in our dynamic and mission-critical systems. That hurts (both them and us).

>>> which subroutines and stored procedures can perform well.
>> You should propose a relational and declarative solution, which
>> *subroutines* are clearly not. These are implementations of behavior
>> decomposed into subprograms. Your claim is that there is no need in such
>> thing.
> No I didn't. They each compliment each other.

Blasphemy! Now, you'll be damned... (:-))

Dmitry A. Kazakov
Received on Tue Mar 18 2008 - 10:28:57 CET

Original text of this message