Re: OOP - a question about database access
From: Alfredo Novoa (alfredo_at_ncs.es)
Date: 11/02/03
- Next message: Paul Sinnett: "Re: How to refactor duplicated code without using helper classes?"
- Previous message: Paul Sinnett: "Re: How to refactor duplicated code without using helper classes?"
- In reply to: Topmind: "Re: OOP - a question about database access"
- Next in thread: Doc O'Leary: "Re: OOP - a question about database access"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 2 Nov 2003 04:32:54 -0800
topmind@technologist.com (Topmind) wrote in message news:<4e705869.0311011311.54e4c592@posting.google.com>...
> OO and relational databases tend not to get along. Their
> philosophies tends to fight over territory.
OO is for application development and relational theory is for data
management.
Many misinformed OOPers try to invade the relational theory territory,
what is a great blunder.
> BTW, databases are about more than JUST persistence
Agreed, and OO is about application code. In the context of an
information system the application responsibilities are presentation
and communication, while the DBMS responsibility is business logic
enforcement.
>, but
> OO fans often don't get it.
Agreed, most OO fans don't get it.
> > > There are no columns in the object model. You need to stop thinking
> > > about the data.
>
>
> Yeah, it makes you go blind, just like masturb*tion.
He probably meant that you need to stop thinking if you want to
believe in that nonsenses.
Alfredo
- Next message: Paul Sinnett: "Re: How to refactor duplicated code without using helper classes?"
- Previous message: Paul Sinnett: "Re: How to refactor duplicated code without using helper classes?"
- In reply to: Topmind: "Re: OOP - a question about database access"
- Next in thread: Doc O'Leary: "Re: OOP - a question about database access"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]