Re: Object-relational impedence

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:36:50 GMT, David Cressey wrote:
>
> > "Roy Hann" <specially_at_processed.almost.meat> wrote in message
> > news:zpSdnSj5fPTYqVHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d_at_pipex.net...
>
> >> I completely, 100% agree with that. Code is evil.
> >
> > It appears, from reading c.o., that OO people regard data structures as
> > evil.
>
> Right, the structure of data would be too low-level to be able to capture
> behavior. As in mathematics, in OO the internal structure of objects is
> irrelevant and when considered, then only as an implementation detail to be
> abstracted away. OO deals with the structures of sets of objects exposing
> same behavior and relations between such sets.

This is misleading. An association between object A and object B does NOT go away just because it is managed via accessors. OOP not only doesn't get one away from dealing with things as "structures", but uses structures that were discredited in late 60's.

Hiding behind accessors is merely a shell game. setMess and getMess is *still* a mess.

> Regards,
> Dmitry A. Kazakov
> http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

-T- Received on Mon Mar 03 2008 - 20:44:07 CET