Re: Object-relational impedence

On 2008-03-06, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox_at_dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 00:21:22 -0600, Robert Martin wrote:
>
>> On 2008-03-05 02:56:02 -0600, "Dmitry A. Kazakov"
>> <mailbox_at_dmitry-kazakov.de> said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 00:46:14 -0600, Robert Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-03-03 16:49:29 -0600, "David Cressey" <cressey73_at_verizon.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> But the idea of a single language that is suitable for everything remains an
>>>>> elusive goal, and probably an unproductive endeavor.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> Disagreed.
>>>
>>> The idea of multilingual system is the most damaging thing in software
>>> developing history.
>>
>> Whooo! Then I guess it's back to toggling in binary for us all.
>
> That does not imply.
>
> If you concede that in your system it would be OK to use SQL together with
> an OOPL X, then your argument of hiding SQL behind the scenes does not
> work. Because alleged technical merits of SQL should in some way show
> themselves in the design. That is the DB-guys point. (They go further and
> propose to scrap X.)

Where do you get this stuff? None of the "DB-guys" said any such things.

>
> My position is opposite. It is that SQL does not have such merits, it is
> there only as an interface to a legacy component. If that component had an
> OOPL X interface I would take it instead. It might appear radical, but in
> fact this is what all those zillions of language X-to-DBMS-Y bindings are
> about.
>

I give up, you do not seem to make any effort to understand what others are saying, and you argue, not against what is said, but what you think is said - which you always get wrong!

E Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 16:32:09 CET