Re: Entity and Identity
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:53:47 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 22, 8:30 pm, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> Walter Mitty wrote:
> > I don't get the connection between the enemy's refusal to fight according to
> > the battle plan and what is called an "exit strategy".
> > ...
> There are lots of obvious comparisons. A most basic one is (the naive,
> unthinking, absurd assumption) that a procedural approach, eg.,
> programming perspective, can somehow co-exist with a declarative one.
> As far as preserving the essence of data is concerned, the procedural
> (so-called OORDMS or suchlike) people, by their beginning assumptions,
> set themselves up for disaster before they even start. Subsequently
> they conclude other nonsense, such as the notion that there is some kind
> of post-hoc reconciliation possible.
I think you're confusing procedural with OO, which is often built on top of procedural languages, although OO have been tacked onto functional languages too. OO always needs another paradigm to ride, since it isn't a model of computation but a broken type system mixed with a module system. Procedural can exist quite happily with declarative - take a look at the procedural interpretation of horn clauses, and continuation passing style programming. Received on Wed Jul 22 2009 - 21:53:47 CEST