Re: Databases as objects

topmind wrote:

S Perryman wrote:

topmind wrote:

TM>I am only saying I don't challenge that domain.

1. No you are not. You stated :

"You guys often imply OO is Liquid Jesus, but offer ZERO evidence
outside of systems software."

That means people *have offered evidence* in that domain.

No, it does not. Saying, "There is no X outside of Y" is NOT the same
as claiming there is X inside of Y. You have committed a logical
fallacy.

Wrong. Because no one has said "There is no X outside of Y" .
You wrote :

"You guys often imply OO is Liquid Jesus, but offer ZERO evidence
outside of systems software."

Structuring the sentence as : X = evidence, Y = systems software

You guys often imply OO is Liquid Jesus, but offer ZERO X outside of Y

which suggests that greater than zero X is offered *inside* of Y.


Otherwise you would have written : You offer zero evidence of OO being
better than <something> in any area.


2. Why do you not "challenge" that domain ??

Because I have insufficient experience in that domain. More specificly,
I cannot evaluate claims of change frequencies, which is a common theme
in these kinds of debates. If somebody says change A is more likely
than change B, I don't have the experience to question it and explain
in detail why it may be the other way around.

Well, once we know exactly what you have experience of working on, we
can debate accordingly.


Regards,
Steven Perryman
.