Re: Object-relational impedence

topmind wrote:

> 
> Bob Badour wrote:
> 

> 
> I think the attributions are messed here, by the way. I didn't write
> what is being replied to below. Just want to clear up the record.

The attributions are fine. One just has to count the chevrons.

>>>Robert Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 2008-03-14 00:17:40 -0500, frebe <frebe73_at_gmail.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 13 Mar, 18:40, Robert Martin <uncle..._at_objectmentor.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The real point of that remark was that the user of a tool is at a
>>>>>>higher level of abstraction than the tool itself. �SQL is a tool. �ORMs
>>>>>>are tools that use SQL to get their job done, just like compilers use
>>>>>>assembly to get their job done. �In that sense ORMs live at a higher
>>>>>>level of abstraction than SQL.
>>>>>
>>>>>Lets have an example: There are many "compiler" products translating
>>>>
>>>>>from a high-level language like ADA to a low-level language like C,
>>>>
>>>>>instead of translating to machine code directly. What if someone wrote
>>>>>a "compiler" translating C source code to ADA source code, would that
>>>>>make C more high level than ADA? Hardly? The existance of a product
>>>>>translating from language A to language B doesn't say anything about
>>>>>the levels of A and B.
>>>>
>>>>That's a good point. The fact that you can write a translator from
>>>>A->B does not mean A is higher level than B.
>>
>>Quite the contrary. In every case of a higher level language B, one can
>>write a translator for it in a lower level language A. This is patently
>>obvious, because ultimately everything has to translate to machine code,
>>which is the lowest-level language of all.

Two chevrons brings us to what I wrote previously. Two more brings us to Martin's nonsense. Received on Mon Mar 17 2008 - 13:25:45 CET