Re: General semantics

From: Erwin <e.smout_at_myonline.be>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 11:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <932f84ed-60a8-418a-b3ab-cb5501191337_at_q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com>



On 21 mei, 17:44, Clifford Heath <n..._at_spam.please.net> wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > Having tried for more than 30 years to discard RM, OO crowd is now
> > reinventing (attempting to) RM.
>
> Maybe. But the "objects" of object role modeling have nothing to do
> with the object of the O-O crowd. The word object in ORM was derived
> from linguistics, and in use before the term O-O was invented.
>
> The only ones displaying the behaviour of the faithful here are those
> who rubbish things they know nothing about.

If that refers to my complaint about all those distinct "types" of constraint : a D can do with exactly two : type constraints and database constraints. So which language do you prefer : a D where you need to master only one single language construct to declare just any database constraint, or an ORM where you need to master dozens of them to do just the same ? Received on Fri May 21 2010 - 13:26:29 CDT

Original text of this message