Re: Databases as objects

topmind wrote:

Patrick May wrote:

"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Patrick May wrote:

PM> You've got it backwards. You used the Visitor pattern in
PM>support of one of your claims in your conversation with Neo. I
PM>simply pointed out that it does not, in fact, support your
PM>argument. The burden of proof is still on you to provide an
PM>example of OO techniques leading to "tangled pasta".

TM>There are no real rules for when to use what GOF pattern, especially
TM>if there are competing factors. The rules of relational
TM>normalization are governed mostly by duplication removal. All else
TM>being equal, consistency trumps inconsistency.

So you can't provide an actual example. You should just come out
and say so.

How exactly does one provide examples to show that there are no
consistent consensus rules for something?

I contend that GoF have such rules: they are labelled "motivation" etc .


If I say "There is no
evidence that unicorns exist", you cannot ask for an example. It is
YOUR burden to show that unicorns exist. Now, replace unicorns with
"consistent consensus rules".

Counter-argument : it is easier to *disprove* something than it is to
*prove* it. ***

Proofs are universal : they must hold under all conditions.
Dis-proof is existential : only one condition has to be found to render
a proof statement invalid as it stands.

So, as far as GoF patterns go (and using your weird language) :

show us *one* "inconsistent consensus rule" .


It is *your burden* to show that one condition.

If you cannot, as Patrick May has so amusingly had you squirming over
the months on various different threads trying to avoid, state that
while you have doubts as to the veracity of something, you specifically
do not have the proof (and/or ability) to disprove the veracity.


Regards,
Steven Perryman

*** Lest you try to claim this is not how proof works etc, I will
*immediately provide a real-world example of one of the most important
advances in science of the last 100 yrs* (ie teaching you how to
actually disprove something) .
.