Re: SQL


Patrick May wrote:
> "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Patrick May wrote:
> > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > You asked "But how are tables less close to the domain than
> > > classes, methods, and attributes?" The answer is, they lack
> > > behavior. The most common language for manipulating tables is SQL
> > > and it is not as powerful as general purpose OO languages.
> >
> > How does not covering the entire behavior spectrum make it "less
> > close" to the domain?
>
> As Mr. Lahman has eloquently pointed out, only CRUD/USER
> applications map directly to the relational model. Other applications
> require different models of both data and behavior. Since SQL has a
> limited support for modeling behavior relative to general purpose
> languages, by your own admission, it is less capable of reflecting the
> abstractions of problem domains other than those of CRUD data
> pipelines.


To keep the discussion on track, I will generally stick to biz apps
here. Most non-trivial biz apps will be helped by a RDB. I have seen
very few exceptions given.


> Where is your evidence that proliferation of accessors and
> mutators is generally accepted as good OO practice?

I have seen debates where a fair amount of participants held such view,
such as usenet and c2.com. Sorry, I don't have a double-blind study or
survey from Price Waterhouse auditors. Itsa side issue anyhow.

Also Betrand Meyer spends a fair amount of text devoted to this subject
in OOSC2 such that he talks about language features to make it easier
to swap between "naked" values and accessors/muts when needed so that
one did not have to pick one side or the other up-front. OOSC2 was
considered a key OO work for several years.

> While we're on the topic of you producing evidence for your
> claims, here's a couple from this thread you still haven't supported:

Most of them are informal side-issues I don't care to discuss right
now.

[el snippo]


> > Are you saying your techniques better fit with legacy systems?
>
> I am saying that your claim is nonsense. Given the need to
> integrate legacy systems and third party products, to expose business
> functionality to a variety of other business systems, to orchestrate
> various levels of processes and workflows, and meet all the other
> requirements of enterprise systems, the idea that the NFRs can be met
> 'by purchasing a "big-iron" RDBMS' is ridiculous.

I would like a code demo on how non-RDBMS better fit legacy systems.
Many RDBMS nightly-batch import info into RDBs so that it can be used
more effectively than the navigational mess it came from. Buchanon
(sp?) lost the navigational debate in the 70's. It's dead, Jim.

> > > Experience in this newsgroup has shown that
> > > attempting to educate you about software outside of your tiny box
> > > is a waste of time. Hence, I simply point out when you are saying
> > > more than you think you are, and move on.
> >
> > Perhaps because they use argument-from-authority instead of evidence
> > out of bad habit.
>
> When you've supported some of your own claims, demonstrated a
> willingness and ability to learn from people with more experience,

If you want to "teach" me (or be convincing in general), show code, not
brochure-talk or your personal braggings. I live in the Show Me state
of mind. People who think they have all the answers are about 200 times
more common than those who can publicly demonstrate it.

> > You show me clear-cut coded proof, and I will change my mind.
>
> No, you won't. You will ignore evidence, deliberately
> misunderstand clear arguments, [....]

You *think* they are good arguments, but they are simply
closed-to-inspection anecdotes when one takes a close look. I don't
think you understand the scientific process. You think it is about
votes or accolade counts.

>
> > > I'll type more slowly. There is no mention of ACLs in the
> > > references I provided. The references I provided show how some
> > > important security issues are addressed. This demonstrates that
> > > your claim that '"Security" is mostly just massive ACL tables.' is
> > > nonsense.
> >
> > Okay, I see where this went wrong. I meant security *could* be
> > implemented by massive ACL tables.
>
> No, it cannot. Either you really don't understand this, in which
> case you should not be commenting on the topic, or Mr. Lahman is
> correct and you are deliberately attempting to annoy people who do
> know something about the issue.
>
> ACLs stored in database tables don't even begin to address the
> security needs of large systems. Read the references provided.

All you have to do is give a realistic and fairly common example of
where RDB ACL's fail. A "use case". That is how you demonstrate that "X
does not work right". That is how you win debates, dude. You talk too
much and show too little. I think you should re-evaluate your approach.

Perhaps if it was a performance issue, then you can be excused for not
giving a use-case and sample code/schemas since readers cannot test
that. But performance does not seem to be your claim here.
Non-performance software issues can usually be readily shown in text.

>
> Sincerely,
>
> Patrick
>

-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relative merits of Lisp-1 vs. Lisp-2?
    ... language, not really as customizations of the current language. ... Common Lisp's design just about everywhere presupposes the desire to ... shift from small-address-space situations like Maclisp served (where ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: why does screwed up source code work?
    ... the common man from using "theory". ... Common Intermediate Language ... Common Lisp ... EGL Programming Language (EGL) ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: OT: Verbal Pet Peeves
    ... Here is a word usage that ... Does the verb "give" not cover this meaning? ... One of the modern language abuses that really twists my knickers is the ... including my own) changes to the common language, ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: Looking for two members
    ... Thank the lord for countries that still speak English ... ?Two nations separated by a common language.? ... ?England and America are two ...
    (rec.music.movies)
  • Re: Spell check does not work in Word 2007?
    ... I appreciate your help, Patrick. ... English Language version. ... Patrick Schmid [OneNote MVP] ...
    (microsoft.public.word.docmanagement)
Loading