Re: Databases as objects

S Perryman wrote:
topmind wrote:

S Perryman wrote:

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

TM>They are often worded as "adding an X without having to change Y".

Please give us an exact reference to all the GoF patterns that are
worded in the manner that you claim.

Page numbers in the GoF book would be most helpful. Failing that, the
pattern names will suffice.

How come the claimer of "motivation" is not subject to your page-number
citation harassment also? Dare I say, "double standard"? You jumped
right over their claims. How convenient.

I have done no such thing. Again, you claim that the sections of the
GoF patterns that are labelled "motivation" :

<quote>
are often worded as "adding an X without having to change Y".
</quote>


I have the GoF book in front of me.
I have quickly scanned the "Motivation" sections of a few patterns, and
see no text of the form you claim.

So (my laxness/laziness aside) , the burden of proof is on you to show
us where in the book there are sections worded as you claim.

If you are unable to do so, retract the claim.


I already did retract it. You keep focusing on it because you found a
tiny morsal of battle that you can win dispite getting your arse kicked
in the war.


TM>Until they are proven better in my domain

And what precisely is your "domain" ??

I expect *specific* infomation here (on-line shopping catalogues, share
dealing systems, inventory control etc) .

That is unrealistic.

No.

Yes.


The boundaries a somewhat fuzzy.

No.

The boundaries between "biz apps" and other domains are clear?
Evidence?



If not, provide *specific examples* of a "biz app" .

I already provided 2 suggestions that we can use for examples.



- construct a decent example that illustrates a specific problem that
you claim exists.

Same with you with regard to procedural/relational. D.S. again.

TM>but OO is not proven better outside of systems software.

Is OO is proven better *inside* of systems software ??

I did not claim that.

Who said that you did ??

Again, you wrote :

"but OO is not proven better outside of systems software."

I am asking whether it has been proven better *inside* of systems
software. If it has not, why did you write the above statement in the
first place ??

I already told you.

What meaning can be deduced other than that OO s/w has
been proven better in a specific subject domain ??

Simple: I am excluding system software from my statement. I am putting
a Null around it, not a value into it. Read it again over and over
until it sinks in.



I am only saying I am not challenging OO in systems software.

And now I am asking : why not ??

The same alleged problems/failings of OO must surely manifest themselves
in "systems software" as in "biz apps" (whatever the latter might be) .

Not necessarily. In custom biz apps, the requirements change more often
than implementation, but in systems software it may perhaps be the
opposite. Engineers tend to define the requirements, not salesmen,
CEO's, or congress; and thus the requirements are a little more
planned, more logical, and more conservative.


You read what you want to read, not what is actually there.

I am reading only what you have written.
IMHO you appear to not even be capable of understanding why you write
things in the first place.

You are the one with a reading problem. Absense of statement is not a
statement of absense.

Steven Perryman

-T-

.