Re: OOP - a question about database access

"Universe" <universe_at_covad.net> wrote in message news:70fb0$3fad4466$3f47e403$10183_at_msgid.meganewsservers.com...
>
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote:
>
> > "Universe" <universe_at_covad.net> wrote in message
>
> > > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "Universe" <universe_at_covad.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >Objects like Employee, Customer, etc are completely
> unnecessary
> > > > > > > > >because that entities are already managed by the DBMS.
> You only need
> > > > > > > > >to map the database tables to visual controls like grids,
> edits, etc.
>
> > > > > > > "Robert C. Martin" <u.n.c.l.e.b.o.b_at_objectmentor.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > This might be true if the database application does
> absolutely not
> > > > > > > > processing of the data. If there are no business rules,
> and the
> > > > > > > > system does nothing more than add, display, modify, and
> delete
> > > > > > > > records, then having entity objects may not be very
> useful. On the
> > > > > > > > other hand, as soon as you add any business rules, such as
> field
> > > > > > > > validation, or summary reporting, etc. you need a way to
> separate
> > > > > > > > those rules from the database. That's one very useful
> application for
> > > > > > > > OO.
>
> > > > > > > What a pearl!
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > If recognized OO writers show this "understanding" of the
> data
> > > > > > > management issues, imagine the rest.
>
> > > > > > Yep, it's widespread and piled high.
>
> > > > > ... *please* explain *concretely* why an app that processes
> *outside* of the
> > > > > dbms would not use separate types?
>
> > > > Please explain how your demand has anything to do with what I
> wrote.
>
> > > Not a demand, simply a request [note the *"please"*] in quest of
> > > furthering discussion to extend and deepen truth.
>
> > I took the emphasis as sarcasm. If that is not what you intended, why
> did
> > you choose the emphasis you chose?
>
> > > > > ... *please* explain *concretely* why an app that processes
> *outside* of the
> > > > > dbms would not use separate types?
>
> Of what the "concretely" and "outside"?

Of all three.

> > > > > Can you guys explain why OO's support for polymorphism is bad,
> or not
> > > > > useful?
>
> > > > Why would I explain anything I never said? Can you explain why the
> sky is
> > > > pink?
>
> > > If you have never explicitly said that on comp.object, it was
> implicit
> > > to me in your explicit comments.
>
> > I do not make implicit statements.
>
> To my logic you did.

I said what I said. Nothing more and nothing less. The rest is a fantasy concocted in your imagination. Fantasy has nothing to do with logic.

> > Please confine your criticism or analysis to what I actually write or
> say.
>
> I will make criticism of whatever I find requires criticism.

If you find it necessary to criticize your fantasies, you have a need to masturbate your intellect. I suggest some things are best done in private.

> > Otherwise, you are arguing with your own imagination, which is nothing
> more than intellectual
> > masturbation.
>
> Most prefer "stating it". But again I will speak to whatever *I* find
> relevant.

Your fantasies have no relevance to anything I say or anything I do regardless of any relevance you imagine.

> > > If you don't agree, c'est la vie. Your loss not ours.
>
> > How do I lose anything from not accepting the thoughts you incorrectly
> > attribute to me?
>
> I was speaking about your disdain/dislike/anti-OO in general.

What general disdain/dislike/anti-OO? Since I have none of those, you speak again to your own fantasies.

> After almost a decade and a half of OO practice, 4 published OO works -
> i) polymorphism, ii) layered system architecture, iii) philosophy wrt OO
> and sw engineering generally iv) OO high level design - in magazines and
> books, I can discern what's anti-OO fairly well.

I suggest your belief in that regard is nothing more than a conceit. Your assertion that you know my own mind better than I do is a ridiculous absurdity. You will have to pardon me if I ridicule you for it. {Insert image of me pointing and laughing here.}

> > > > I encourage the use of the relational model, and I have
> > > > never disdained it. If you are suggesting that some primitive
> location-based
> > > > computational model has usability advantages, please show us your
> empirical
> > > > evidence.
>
> > > There are few formal analyses that OO modelling is less complex and
> more
> > > intuitive.
>
> > That makes sense given it is much more complex and far less intuitive.
> For
> > most and very probably all developers, it is very much an acquired
> skill.
>
> No. Just a matter that the greatest benefit of OO is not "quantitative"
> or "metrical", but "qualitative" and "cognitive".

If it is so intuitive, how could it affect cognition? Would it not be innate?

> Much harder to create
> empirical proof.

Usability metrics are well-known and entirely empirical. Psychology is sufficiently complex to require empiricism to have any validity. If you have any interest in learning more about the topic, I suggest you start at the following URL: http://www.useit.com/

> But there are studies where for the same context that
> the average project posses, OO proved itself superior. See Caper-Jones
> for one set.

Superior to what, exactly? Superior is comparative and not superlative. Confusing superior with supreme further suggests an outline of your cognitive box.

> > > However the empirical evidence that most advanced developers and
> IS/IT
> > > savvy clients generally find OO models more intuitive, and or less
> > > complex than models of other paradigms for the same given context is
> > > that they communicate this understanding.
>
> > Expert developers understand and use OO--not because it is intuitive
> but
> > because they trained very hard for an extended time in order to
> understand
> > it. Even still, few of them understand it well enough to recognize its
> > limitations or its essential nature.
>
> You can *prove* that?

I don't have to. You already have.

> Seems you think that OO is "some primitive
> location-based
> computational model".

It is.

> Some day I'd like to read your definition of
> "location-based
> computational model".

If you do not know what a computational model is, you practise in the wrong field. By location-based, I mean based on location in some linear address space.

> That term is in none of my CS/IS textbooks, none
> of the books in the CS/IS section of the bookstores, and in none of the
> various industry periodicals I read weekly and monthly.

If none of the texts you read explain what a computational model is, your education sorely wants.

> Plus that is
> one supposed limitation.

Hmmm, so you find the essential nature of OO a limitation, do you? That's interesting.

> Perhaps some day I'll read the others you
> allege regarding OO.

You mean things like ambiguity and widespread confusion? Only one of those is really a property of OO--the other is only deriviative.

> > I do not disparage OO. I disparage the cognitive box from which you
> view the
> > world.
>
> My prime cognitive box for sw engineering is OO. ???

I have no idea whether it is your prime or only cognitive box. I suspect you have many and perhaps some far more confining. For instance, your faith that your fantasies have external relevance seems quite a crippling handicap to me. However, if your knee-jerk response to what I write is to assume I disparage OO, you most definitely view the world from a cognitive box--talk about "angst." Sheesh!

> > Who is in a better position to know my mind? You have
> > nothing to offer me in that regard.
>
> That's what *you* think. That is because you either you don't agree
> with or don't understand the implications of things and processes in the
> world existing independently of whether or not, or how, one or more may
> think of those things and processes.

Yes, my thoughts are what I think. You know only my thoughts I communicate to you. Any other thoughts you perceive are your own thoughts.

> I.e. there are things that are
> true you are not aware in spite if you agree with that or not. I'll say
> what I think is best to support genuine truth, what you do about is what
> you do.

Genuine truth only comes from your mind.... okay. [Kookoo! Kookoo!]

> Killfile me.

That sounds like an excellent idea.

> Again your loss.

If it comforts you to believe that, be my guest. I am happy to serve. Received on Sat Nov 08 2003 - 21:33:58 CET