Re: Mixing OO and DB

"Patrick May" <pjm_at_spe.com> wrote in message news:m2fxvb1gcn.fsf_at_spe.com...
> 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.
>
> 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
>
People who refer to Codd as Dr. Codd should also be viewed with suspicion. Received on Sat Mar 01 2008 - 01:16:26 CET