Re: domains aren't subtypes, right?

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_ywho.com> wrote in message news:<v2UAa.11$0m2.38_at_news.oracle.com>...
> In short: having more datatypes is not an answer. Having better datatypes is
> the answer.

 Can't resist this . . . .

   What convinces you that you (or anyone) has a unique pipeline to truth and   beauty that makes you a superior judge of when one data type design is 'better'   than another?

   In support of your conclusion that Oracle's 'one size fits all' date type is   'better', you have presented an aesthetic argument based on a single use-case.   For every example you can come up with where it makes sense to use a   DATETIME/TIMESTAMP type to represent both date & time, I can think of one   where it is awkward (not to mention the confusion it creates in systems where   meta-data is used to help users navigate around the schema and understand   what it represents).

    Applications vary in their requirements. That's why modern programming   languages developed abstract types/modules/object classes/components. My   experience in software engineering (and life) is that it is too diverse to   be standardized, and that tools which can be modified to suit reality are   more useful tools than those designed by people who tell you what you need.

    Just M2CW -

                PB