Re: Issues with the logical consistency of The Third Manifesto
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:04:28 +0100
Message-ID: <hdvhp0p5sa5r9hg0uthia57s38upg7nqpk_at_4ax.com>
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:32:44 GMT, "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com>
wrote:
>Well, I skimmed it; it was very wordy. Any critique of D&D's
IMO the idea is trivially true: types are types and not variables. But
the First Great Blunder is a rare mistake.
People don't identify classes with relations, people ignore and reject
all modern data management theory. They often design that kind of
classes because they want to manage the data from the applications.
>"First Great Bluder" is okay in my book; their whole idea
>is weak.
This is a blunder, but not Date's First Great Blunder.
> It's pretty funny to hear them complain about how there
>is no single definition of what an object is, and then conclude
>that objects aren't tuple.
I don't see that conclusion.
Tuples are objects, relations are objects, classes are objects, variables are objects, operators are objects, I am an object, everything is an object.
A good definition of object is this:
Object: Something intelligible or perceptible by the mind.
>a definition of what an object is? In any event, it's pretty
>clear that D&D don't really understand OOP;
I disagree. IMO they understand OOP a lot better than the overwhelming
majority of the OO coders.
The problem is that the principle of incoherence applies to the OOP.
>about some aspects of language design involving objects and
>relations, and Date says he pretty much doesn't understand
>the interesting parts.
What does "the possibility of joining tables and having the proper 'class' materialize to handle it" means?
He does not understand it because it is very bad expressed. There is nothing valuable or specific to the OO there.
>OTOH I think the author really misses the point on his
>critique of the Second Great Blunder. (Shall we just
>call them 1GB and 2GB?) Pointerless programming is
>a big win.
He also misses the point about the identity of the objects.
Regards Received on Mon Nov 15 2004 - 20:04:28 CET