Re: Databases as objects
- From: Patrick May <pjm@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:22:19 -0500
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Patrick May wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Neo wrote:
If you take away inheritence, you get "network structures"
(AKA tangled pasta). Dr. Codd sought to escape those by
applying set theory, and network structures thankfully fell
out of favor, until the OO crowd tried to bring them back
from the dead.
Can you give an example of such as tangled pasta?
OO Visitor pattern.
The Visitor pattern provides two capabilities: 1) simulation
of double dispatch and 2) non-intrusively adding new operations to
existing classes. Both of these address limitations of languages
such as C++ and Java. The existence of this pattern does not
demonstrate a general flaw in the object oriented approach.
How about you Visitor defenders present a somewhat practical biz
example where Visitor allegedly makes maintenence easier.
Non-sequitur. I never claimed to be a "fan" of the pattern, nor
did I assert that it makes maintenance easier. I merely pointed out
the reasons for using it and provided an example of the context in
which it applies. My only purpose was to demonstrate that your use of
this pattern to support your contention that OO techniques result in
"tangled pasta" is without merit.
Sincerely,
Patrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc. | Large scale, mission-critical, distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
pjm@xxxxxxx | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, middleware, SOA)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: topmind
- Re: Databases as objects
- References:
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: topmind
- Re: Databases as objects
- Prev by Date: Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
- Next by Date: Re: Databases as objects
- Previous by thread: Re: Databases as objects
- Next by thread: Re: Databases as objects
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|