Re: Mixing OO and DB

Patrick May wrote:
> mAsterdam writes:

>> Mixing OO and DB:
>> In practise we do it all the time.
>> In theory it can't work.
>>
>> Leslie Sanford wrote:
>>
>>> Newsgroups: comp.object, comp.databases.theory
>>> I cringe every time I see a thread crossposted to these two groups.
>>> Good seldomn comes of it. 
>> Do you have an explanation for that?
>>
>> Within one group, the easy way is: the other guys are so stupid.
>> Let's skip 'the other guys are so stupid' in this sub-thread.  I
>> re-included cdt.
>>
>> Let's cross this divide, and behave as if it is a real border.  This
>> means you can't carry all of your preconceptions, and you will have
>> to adapt your language.
>>
>> Any ideas except 'the other guys are so stupid'?


> 

>      Ah, an idealist.  I love the smell of them being burned by their

Idealist - who, me? Don't know, I don't think so. Anyway, the ones burning those who cross borders are not on my side. They never were.

> Seriously, I wish you luck in this endeavor. My thoughts on this
> are that different approaches ("paradigms", for lack of a better term)

approach?

> are more suited to particular problem domains. Not particularly
> profound, I know. The problem seems to stem from an all too common
> desire, perhaps even a deep-seated human need, to identify with a
> single paradigm. It's the Highlander Principle in software: There
> can only be one!
>
> I'm old enough to have made the transition from client-server
> systems written in C and SQL (Oracle 3 and 4, no less) to OO, first
> with Zortech C++ and then other languages.

Zortech, because Borland did not like the name Zorland.

> The people I know who went
> through that transition are far less likely to be single-paradigm
> bigots than people who know only Java (damn young whippersnappers)
> because they have personally experienced the costs and benefits of
> each set of techniques and idioms.
>
> Working in a variety of domains (both problem and solution) seems
> to ameliorate single-paradigm bigotry as well. People who have spent
> their careers with big iron databases often lack the context to
> understand the benefits of other paradigms, just as do newly minted
> grads who know only Java. One of my favorite interview questions is
> "What do you like best about your favorite programming language or
> environment and what would you change about it if you could?" Anyone
> who can't think of an improvement is out the door.
>
> I prefer to work with people who understand procedural,
> relational, OO, and functional programming. The boundaries between
> these paradigms are not sharp -- useful techniques span paradigms.
> Ultimately I'm looking for a gestalt development environment that
> leverages the benefits of the superset of these techniques to deliver
> high quality software. That's the real goal, after all.

That is stricly one side of the fence - it is the goal for a software development process.
The goal for a DB is to serve as a vehicle to manage data.

Paradigm, gestalt development environment, leverages the benefits of the superset of these techniques, gestalt development, I'll requote:

 >> Let's cross this divide, and behave as if it is a real border.
 >> This means you can't carry all of your preconceptions,
 >> and you will have to adapt your language.

Do I need to explain?

--
What you see depends on where you stand.