tablizer says as one programs oo you "re invent" the database in code
often far mroe inefficiently thatn the "team" of a relational db
+procedural language.
Is this division of labor inevitable?
Will a "dumb" langauge like tcl and a database like postgresql when
skillyfully combined always outperform a lisp based framework
solution?
I mean the way tablizer says with control tables etc.
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/oopbad.htm
"
A common misconception is that one has to change all the procedural
code if a DB field type or size changes. For example, if a percentage
rate changes from an integer to a float/real, then OO fans often claim
that it causes a procedural code change cascade. However, this usually
only matters in strong-typed languages, like C, Java, and Pascal.
(Weaker typing is better for p/r usage in my opinion.)
The fact that these claims come up time and time again testifies to
the p/r ignorance that is floating around out there. These OOrban
legends spread around like bad gossip via greedy snake OOil
salespersons.
It is also sometimes stated that procedural/relational software cannot
factor as well. I have found that this is not true. Given a few
dynamic features and flexible variable scoping control, I can factor
any procedural/relational program as small as an equivalent OO
program. (The result may not always have the same built-in protection
against forgetful maintenance programmers, but it is not more code.)
Another false bash of procedural/relational (P/R) is given by Bertrand
Meyer (Ch. 5 of OOSC2). He sets up a false dichotomy of top-down
versus OO. I have many times written P/R software without locking the
units into the kind of arbitrary top-down ordering he describes. His
dichotomy is purely fiction. Perhaps he likes OO so much because he is
such a crappy proceduralist. Just because you cannot ride a bicycle
does not mean that a horse is better for all.
"
etc etc
In article
<····································@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> tablizer says as one programs oo you "re invent" the database in code
> often far mroe inefficiently thatn the "team" of a relational db
> +procedural language.
>
> Is this division of labor inevitable?
>
> Will a "dumb" langauge like tcl and a database like postgresql when
> skillyfully combined always outperform a lisp based framework
> solution?
>
> I mean the way tablizer says with control tables etc.
> http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/oopbad.htm
> "
> A common misconception is that one has to change all the procedural
> code if a DB field type or size changes. For example, if a percentage
> rate changes from an integer to a float/real, then OO fans often claim
> that it causes a procedural code change cascade. However, this usually
> only matters in strong-typed languages, like C, Java, and Pascal.
> (Weaker typing is better for p/r usage in my opinion.)
>
> The fact that these claims come up time and time again testifies to
> the p/r ignorance that is floating around out there. These OOrban
> legends spread around like bad gossip via greedy snake OOil
> salespersons.
>
> It is also sometimes stated that procedural/relational software cannot
> factor as well. I have found that this is not true. Given a few
> dynamic features and flexible variable scoping control, I can factor
> any procedural/relational program as small as an equivalent OO
> program. (The result may not always have the same built-in protection
> against forgetful maintenance programmers, but it is not more code.)
>
> Another false bash of procedural/relational (P/R) is given by Bertrand
> Meyer (Ch. 5 of OOSC2). He sets up a false dichotomy of top-down
> versus OO. I have many times written P/R software without locking the
> units into the kind of arbitrary top-down ordering he describes. His
> dichotomy is purely fiction. Perhaps he likes OO so much because he is
> such a crappy proceduralist. Just because you cannot ride a bicycle
> does not mean that a horse is better for all.
> "
> etc etc
___________________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
--
On Oct 9, 10:02 am, gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> tablizer says
OMG, a meta-troll! Errrr ... no, it's a troll collision? Sterile
hybrid, maybe, Trollus gavinus x tabilae? Blast from the past, fresh
from the future? Help, I'm not a trained cladist!
(Is topmind still active, or has gavino been using the Wayback Machine
for his trolling exploits?)