Re: Queries and OO
From: Doc O'Leary (droleary.usenet_at_2005.subsume.com)
Date: 01/19/05
- Next message: Doc O'Leary: "Re: Singletons"
- Previous message: Robert C. Martin: "Re: up front designs always useless"
- In reply to: mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Next in thread: mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Reply: mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:55:42 -0600
In article <1106088993.098895.19150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com wrote:
> Doc O'Leary wrote:
> > It's called pseudo-code, son, which abstractly expresses the
> operation I
> > explained.
>
> By pseudocode you mean that you are allowed to put whatever nonsence
> you like hoping that nobody would be scrupulous ehough to check it?
No, I mean that the syntax is *arbitrary* and *unimportant*. Do you
really imagine that I was trying to pull one over on you by means of a
typo?
> I'm sorry, could you please fix brakets in your "pseudocode". Reading
> code with typos in unfamiliar syntax is too much of a burden.
I think I'm done talking about higher level development with you if you
get stuck on a syntax error; a compiler can give me a discussion as
insightful as yours. It's not like we don't both understand what the
query is supposed to do. As I said, fell free ignore my code, use your
own SQL, and address the issue of semantics I raised. What is the real
conceptual difference between doing a query on Movie implemented as a
table vs. Movie implemented as an object?
- Next message: Doc O'Leary: "Re: Singletons"
- Previous message: Robert C. Martin: "Re: up front designs always useless"
- In reply to: mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Next in thread: mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Reply: mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|