Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <05d17240-aefa-4620-ba86-88ecd900bbb7_at_s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>

On Feb 15, 5:45 pm, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:

> I hope you are remembering in this discussion that I expect an OO
> language to support at least two distinct notions of subtype. One
> centres on substitutability of values and the other on
> substitutability of objects. I'm reticent to say variable instead of
> object because some people assume (by definition) variable represents
> a value.

Just butting in here, but I wanted to say that this is exactly the sort of complexity that makes me convinced that this whole main branch of programming language design is a dead end. Who needs all this co-variant/contra-variant, subtyping is not subsetting craziness? How does this help the working programmer get his code written?

Marshall Received on Sat Feb 16 2008 - 02:54:54 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Brian Selzer: "Re: Mixing OO and DB"
Previous message: Marshall: "Re: Mixing OO and DB"
Maybe in reply to: Victor Porton: "Mixing OO and DB"
In reply to David BL: "Re: Mixing OO and DB"
Next in thread: Brian Selzer: "Re: Mixing OO and DB"
Reply: David BL: "Re: Mixing OO and DB"
Reply: Robert Martin: "Re: Mixing OO and DB"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message