Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:36:29 GMT
"Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:dec37ad0-4143-4eb6-a7f5-9c92b7cd331c_at_c20g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>Java has primitive arrays. They are sufficiently lame that
I don't use them much. They also aren't all that pretty as far as the type system goes; Java array types are covariant but of course array-element-assignment is contravariant, so you can get (runtime) errors.
Java has a bajillion collection classes, and as such things go, they're actually pretty good. (Incl. dictionaries.) They are all class based. Java really, really wants you to use classes. (The anthropomorphism there is all in my phrasing; what I mean is that the language design makes the use of classes easy and doesn't provide much else to use.)
I wish you had been around for the last incursion by an OO programmer. This guy was not as firmly mired in his paradigm as some of the others of his ilk. I think your responses to him would have been good.
I attempted to meet him halfway, in order to persuade him to look into the
RM a little more before writing it off as a return to procedural
That attempt was pretty much doomed to failure, but I think I did alter his trajectory by just a tiny bit.
What you say about Java speaks volumes to me, although I don't really get what you mean by lame arrays. What makes Java arrays lame? What is an example of non lame arrays? Keep in mind that you are reponding to someone who knows almost nothing about Java, but understands a little bit about PL run time systems. Received on Thu Jun 18 2009 - 12:36:29 CEST