Re: Entity and Identity
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <171337c1-6719-45c9-a8b6-dbd4ba82a8af_at_k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
Snipped...
> Again, I recommend the article cited above.
It's always interesting to watch people rediscover some established truthes using a different pathes...In this case the nebulous path.
The article concludes...
<<
Abandonment. Developers simply give up on objects entirely, and return
to a programming model that doesn't create the object/relational
impedance mismatch. While distasteful, in certain scenarios an objectoriented
approach creates more overhead than it saves, and the ROI
simply isn't there to justify the cost of creating a rich domain
model. ([Fowler] talks about this to some depth.) This eliminates the
problem quite neatly, because if there are no objects, there is no
impedance mismatch.
>>
...which means that one does not always have to try to solve a problem that would not exist in te first place if objects were no used...Same reasonning applies to NULL values.
The article also lists as a potential conclusion a *relationalization* of object oriented...(Reinventing the square wheel if you will)
For his credit, the writer *did* have the intellectual honnesty to recognize the fundamental limitation of object mindset. It is just a shame that he is repeating in an vague way what relational theorists have been trying to warn the community for decades...
I am seriously beginning to truly believe the myth that OO truly corrupts cognitive abilities. Received on Tue Jul 21 2009 - 00:46:48 CEST