Re: General semantics
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
On May 21, 8:26 pm, Erwin <e.sm..._at_myonline.be> wrote:
> 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 ?
CQL doesn't equal ORM. However, I agree about the language. A parser for natural English would impress me, but I still wouldn't use it to create programs. Received on Fri May 21 2010 - 21:53:56 CEST