Re: Mixing OO and DB
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:40:40 -0500
Message-ID: <m2fxvb1gcn.fsf_at_spe.com>
[Quoted] Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> writes:
> On Feb 29, 10:12 am, Patrick May <p..._at_spe.com> wrote:
>> Common Lisp, for example, allows the creation of completely
>> new language constructs, including flow of control constructs, via
>> its macro facility. This allows creation of richer DSLs than most
>> OO languages do.
>
> If I am going to take you to task for overbroad claims, I feel some
> responsibility as well to point out when you are being too
> modest. Your second sentence quoted above is an understatement to a
> significant degree.
>
> As an aside, I can say from a fair bit of experience that LISPers
> and Relational folk are among the most ornery around. However when
> one is debating with a LISPer one at least has the benefit of
> knowing one is likely arguing with a worthy opponent.
[Quoted] I'm somewhat bemused by the immediate antagonism exhibited by the c.d.t. folks towards anyone who thinks that OO is anything other than pure snake oil. I was around for the industry transition to OO (I probably still have my Zortech C++ manuals somewhere). Most of the experienced developers I know and prefer to work with understand the costs and benefits of both technologies.
It sounds like some of you from c.d.t. have had to deal with a surfeit of Java weenies. I eliminate them early in the hiring process with the question "What do you like best about Java and what would you change if you could?" Anyone who doesn't spend 90% of his or her response time on the second half of the question is out the door.
Regards,
Patrick
S P Engineering, Inc. | Large scale, mission-critical, distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
pjm_at_spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, middleware, SOA)
Received on Sat Mar 01 2008 - 00:40:40 CET