Re: Mixing OO and DB
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:44:02 +0100
Message-ID: <12xrhegkxf9kh$.vagfvs1p85il$.dlg_at_40tude.net>
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 13:32:21 +0100, mAsterdam wrote:
>> mAsterdam wrote: >> >>> 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? >>> >>> Any ideas except 'the other guys are so stupid'? >> >> Market. Both OO and RDB are technologies with market products on sale.
>
> Let's see if I can play with this using a metaphore.
>
> So are, say, ships and engines (technologies with market products on
> sale). Both have their own laws.
> Designing a motorized boat requires a shared understanding
> of some of them. There is a market for sailing boats,
> there is a market for engines wchich can be used in other things than
> ships. In this thread, we /are/ mixing. Shouldn't there be a market
> for motorizing boats and for engines fit for use on a ship?
All technical disciplines are based on natural sciences which provide a common ground for an interdisciplinary communication. This is not the case for either OO or RDB. They not only compete in selling, often snake oil, which questions whether they indeed are different disciplines, as your example suggests. But also they do not have any elaborated scientific disciplines backing them and shared by them. (I don't count mathematics, which is as unspecific to software engineering, as for example English language is)
> > People like topmind and frebe aren't
> > excommunicated regardless their propaganda. Does comp.databases.theory have
> > such?
> This is a c.o politically correct 'the other guys are so stupid' question.
I just wished to know it for statistics... So the answer is 'no'? (:-))
-- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.deReceived on Sat Feb 09 2008 - 15:44:02 CET