Re: OO versus RDB
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:40:46 GMT
Message-ID: <2Nyrg.127993$iF6.13538_at_pd7tw2no>
Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> ... > What is computed from what is irrelevant, that's a behaviour, which is only > required to be invariant....
This use of language drives me crazy - how the heck can a result be a behaviour? It makes me think that when talking of such things, people ought to be careful to about using passive verbs like 'to be'.
It reminds of a similar message a few days ago where somebody said "The
point is that if you treat the data as instructions,
> then you will eventually come of with the notion of pointers or
> references to those instructions. From there it's a short hop to
> dynamic polymorphism, which leads right back to objects."
Data is/are instructions? According to this, presumably all data could be instructions, making me wonder if there are some instructions that aren't data. The second sentence seems to give the game away, talking about the "short hop". Seems the first sentence is also talking about a hop, ie., a big hop into mysticism, not to mention away from the subject at hand.
Why 'instructions' anyway? Are they something different from operators?
The OO people seem to be just as slippery a bunch as the SQL product authors. I wonder if Google can give the average number of syllables in words used in the OO group as opposed to this one?
p Received on Fri Jul 07 2006 - 21:40:46 CEST