Serious question

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #157,058 by drewk 5/26/04 1:12:56 PM Reply	Serious question You are simply pro-file and anti-table. You keep saying you don't like OO, but all your comparisons seem to be comparing tables to files. Is your main beef with files vs tables? Because it looks to me like you and Scott are having two different discussions. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #157,084 by tablizer 5/26/04 4:08:44 PM Reply	Interrelated You keep saying you don't like OO, but all your comparisons seem to be comparing tables to files. Is your main beef with files vs tables? Because it looks to me like you and Scott are having two different discussions. They are interrelated because people tend to use OO to compensate for limits of hierarchical file systems but I prefer databases for such. And, to communicate info between the program and the database sometims files are needed (or to speed things up) because compilers and interpreters are better integrated with file systems than database systems. For example, "include" commands in programs are adapted to grab code from files, but not directly from databases. There is pro-file bigotry out there. Scott's argument seems to be that OO and file-centricity currently work well together and that is why one should go with them instead of table-centric approaches. It is kind of a QWERTY argument: standards protect themselves because they create mini-industries and habits around such standards, even if they have problems. My argument is that even though conventions limit their power, table-centric approaches are still superior, or at least not clearly inferior. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #157,093 by admin 5/26/04 4:54:00 PM Reply	Re: Interrelated table-centric approaches are still superior, or at least not clearly inferior. You've demonstrated no superiority whatsoever. The only thing you've demonstrated is possible code maintenance parity (by using control tables and poorly imitating polymorphism), which has quite a few deficiencies, including poorer performance and migration maintenance. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Re: Login checks and declarative processing - (admin) - (130) - May 24, 2004, 06:01:48 PM EDT

Re Re: Login checks and declarative processing - (tablizer) - (129) - May 24, 2004, 07:17:45 PM EDT

Declarative languages can easily be turing complete - (ChrisR) - (9) - May 24, 2004, 07:20:06 PM EDT

I am assuming he means XML-like -NT - (tablizer) - (8) - May 24, 2004, 07:46:00 PM EDT

There are a multitude of XML based languages.... - (ChrisR) - (7) - May 24, 2004, 08:11:34 PM EDT

If your config files are TC, then why have 2 langs? -NT - (tablizer) - (5) - May 24, 2004, 08:29:04 PM EDT

Do you really have to ask? - (ChrisR) - (2) - May 24, 2004, 08:35:23 PM EDT

TC != Easy -NT - (tablizer) - (1) - May 24, 2004, 10:55:40 PM EDT

Exactly. - (ChrisR) - May 24, 2004, 11:15:07 PM EDT

One's a hammer, the other is a screwdriver. -NT - (admin) - May 24, 2004, 08:35:44 PM EDT

As an aside, that question has popped up in another context - (ChrisR) - May 24, 2004, 09:03:21 PM EDT

BTW, Turing machines don't require much. - (ChrisR) - May 24, 2004, 08:34:25 PM EDT

Re: Login checks and declarative processing - (admin) - (118) - May 24, 2004, 07:49:02 PM EDT

Login checks and declarative processing - (tablizer) - (117) - May 24, 2004, 08:09:21 PM EDT

Re: Login checks and declarative processing - (admin) - (116) - May 24, 2004, 08:35:10 PM EDT

Polymorphism - (tablizer) - (115) - May 24, 2004, 09:48:47 PM EDT

Raison d'etre d'composition - (FuManChu) - (3) - May 24, 2004, 10:26:31 PM EDT

Epicycles - (tablizer) - (2) - May 24, 2004, 10:51:41 PM EDT

Re: Epicycles - (admin) - May 25, 2004, 12:05:15 AM EDT

Once more with feeling - (FuManChu) - May 25, 2004, 11:13:30 AM EDT

So the best organization of code is... - (ChrisR) - (8) - May 24, 2004, 11:16:32 PM EDT

The funny thing is... - (admin) - (1) - May 25, 2004, 12:06:18 AM EDT

Noticed that too - (drewk) - May 25, 2004, 09:21:30 AM EDT

That is NOT what I said - (tablizer) - (5) - May 25, 2004, 01:31:18 AM EDT

Re: That is NOT what I said - (admin) - May 25, 2004, 10:16:12 AM EDT

Poor dichotomy on which to base your opinion of OO - (FuManChu) - (3) - May 25, 2004, 11:19:09 AM EDT

re: Poor dichotomy on which to base your opinion of OO - (tablizer) - (2) - May 25, 2004, 07:30:34 PM EDT

re: Poor dichotomy on which to base your opinion of OO - (admin) - (1) - May 25, 2004, 07:36:46 PM EDT

How Lisp of you. Just add some TOP now. -NT - (tablizer) - May 25, 2004, 08:17:23 PM EDT

Who says it's hard-coupled to a single factor? - (admin) - (101) - May 24, 2004, 11:57:05 PM EDT

so you say - (tablizer) - (100) - May 25, 2004, 01:26:37 AM EDT

Sounds like another... - (admin) - (99) - May 25, 2004, 09:53:22 AM EDT

Text is linear - (tablizer) - (98) - May 25, 2004, 04:46:02 PM EDT

Re: Text is linear - (admin) - (97) - May 25, 2004, 04:59:33 PM EDT

Delt-A-Matic - (tablizer) - (96) - May 25, 2004, 07:25:43 PM EDT

Re: Delt-A-Matic - (admin) - (95) - May 25, 2004, 07:36:15 PM EDT

problem is treed-files, not procedural - (tablizer) - (94) - May 25, 2004, 08:15:51 PM EDT

Re: problem is treed-files, not procedural - (admin) - (21) - May 25, 2004, 08:26:03 PM EDT

Re: problem is treed-files, not procedural - (tablizer) - (20) - May 25, 2004, 09:02:21 PM EDT

Re: problem is treed-files, not procedural - (admin) - (19) - May 25, 2004, 09:11:02 PM EDT

Re: problem is treed-files, not procedural - (tablizer) - (18) - May 26, 2004, 01:39:55 AM EDT

Re: problem is treed-files, not procedural - (admin) - (17) - May 26, 2004, 08:17:33 AM EDT

misunderstanding - (tablizer) - (16) - May 26, 2004, 12:49:28 PM EDT

Re: misunderstanding - (admin) - (15) - May 26, 2004, 02:38:55 PM EDT

Well... I pack up my development database and... - (ChrisR) - May 26, 2004, 02:43:12 PM EDT

How do you prime it in the first place? - (folkert) - (2) - May 26, 2004, 03:30:05 PM EDT

I prefer Kilz myself. -NT - (Another Scott) - (1) - May 26, 2004, 03:41:04 PM EDT

That works well... - (folkert) - May 26, 2004, 03:51:37 PM EDT

The file system *is* a database - (tablizer) - (9) - May 26, 2004, 03:54:38 PM EDT

Re: The file system *is* a database - (admin) - (8) - May 26, 2004, 04:48:29 PM EDT

over-the-phone brain surgery - (tablizer) - (7) - May 26, 2004, 07:27:42 PM EDT

Re: over-the-phone brain surgery - (admin) - (6) - May 26, 2004, 07:39:07 PM EDT

a single command does not like databases? - (tablizer) - (5) - May 27, 2004, 01:29:08 AM EDT

Re: a single command does not like databases? - (admin) - (3) - May 27, 2004, 09:16:09 AM EDT

Re: single command - (tablizer) - (2) - May 27, 2004, 12:46:38 PM EDT

Naw... you are thinking... - (folkert) - May 27, 2004, 01:55:32 PM EDT

Re: single command - (admin) - May 27, 2004, 02:46:30 PM EDT

Database migrations (new thread) - (admin) - May 27, 2004, 09:16:20 AM EDT

Nit: some code does belong in a database. (sp's) -NT - (mmoffitt) - May 27, 2004, 04:52:26 PM EDT

Exactly. - (FuManChu) - (71) - May 25, 2004, 08:40:29 PM EDT

Amazing, isn't it? - (admin) - May 25, 2004, 08:42:41 PM EDT

OO takes credit for sunrises even - (tablizer) - (69) - May 25, 2004, 09:11:42 PM EDT

Scheme and the Lambda Calculus - (ChrisR) - May 25, 2004, 09:12:57 PM EDT

Re: OO takes credit for sunrises even - (admin) - (60) - May 25, 2004, 09:13:22 PM EDT

No way Jose -- Gotta go to DB anyhow - (tablizer) - (59) - May 26, 2004, 01:30:09 AM EDT

Er... - (admin) - (27) - May 26, 2004, 08:11:48 AM EDT

"Use OO because OO is faster" is the best you can do? - (tablizer) - (26) - May 26, 2004, 12:40:01 PM EDT

Serious question - (drewk) - (2) - May 26, 2004, 01:12:56 PM EDT

Interrelated - (tablizer) - (1) - May 26, 2004, 04:08:44 PM EDT

Re: Interrelated - (admin) - May 26, 2004, 04:54:00 PM EDT

Re: "Use OO because OO is faster" is the best you can do? - (admin) - (22) - May 26, 2004, 05:00:33 PM EDT

Table != Disk - (tablizer) - (21) - May 27, 2004, 01:42:29 PM EDT

Re: OR mappers slowing things down - (ChrisR) - (17) - May 27, 2004, 01:51:37 PM EDT

Re: OR mappers slowing things down - (tablizer) - (16) - May 27, 2004, 02:38:09 PM EDT

Re: OR mappers slowing things down - (ChrisR) - (15) - May 27, 2004, 02:51:27 PM EDT

Re: OR mappers slowing things down - (tablizer) - (14) - May 27, 2004, 03:32:44 PM EDT

Procedural abstraction - (ChrisR) - (2) - May 27, 2004, 03:52:22 PM EDT

My abstraction can beat up your abstraction - (tablizer) - (1) - May 27, 2004, 04:59:40 PM EDT

re: Relational is more than storage (new thread) - (ChrisR) - May 27, 2004, 05:23:52 PM EDT

It wasn't a caching issue - (ben_tilly) - (10) - May 27, 2004, 05:44:43 PM EDT

No file IO - (admin) - (9) - May 27, 2004, 06:36:08 PM EDT

I understand how it worked - (ben_tilly) - (8) - May 27, 2004, 06:42:57 PM EDT

Index lookup in code, or table index? - (admin) - (7) - May 27, 2004, 06:51:28 PM EDT

That requirement would shock me - (ben_tilly) - (6) - May 27, 2004, 07:14:44 PM EDT

Re: That requirement would shock me - (admin) - (5) - May 27, 2004, 10:10:43 PM EDT

Question about Oracle tables - (ChrisR) - (2) - May 27, 2004, 10:33:28 PM EDT

You can pin them in memory. - (admin) - (1) - May 27, 2004, 11:06:22 PM EDT

Oracle tables pinned in memory. - (admin) - June 3, 2004, 10:56:28 PM EDT

You did give the impression that CPU was the issue - (ben_tilly) - (1) - May 27, 2004, 11:04:10 PM EDT

Whoops, my mistake. -NT - (admin) - May 27, 2004, 11:05:24 PM EDT

Re: Table != Disk - (admin) - (2) - May 27, 2004, 02:56:53 PM EDT

This is an area in which I'm proud of Dejavu - (FuManChu) - (1) - May 27, 2004, 04:14:42 PM EDT

Nifty. - (admin) - May 27, 2004, 04:53:04 PM EDT

Another little anecdote for you: - (admin) - (7) - May 26, 2004, 08:35:37 AM EDT

OT: Scott, can we please do something about long lines? - (jb4) - (6) - May 26, 2004, 12:27:41 PM EDT

Dang, this was SUPPOSED to go into the Suggestions forum - (jb4) - (3) - May 26, 2004, 01:04:43 PM EDT

The other way, besides cut and paste, is to re-type it :-) -NT - (ChrisR) - (2) - May 26, 2004, 03:45:01 PM EDT

There isn't enough time in the world... - (jb4) - (1) - May 27, 2004, 10:37:13 AM EDT

HTH: As with Perl, There's More Than One Way To Do It -NT - (ChrisR) - May 27, 2004, 12:43:31 PM EDT

Perhaps one might play with CSS clip and overflow...? -NT - (FuManChu) - May 26, 2004, 03:08:03 PM EDT

Not that I'm aware of. - (admin) - May 26, 2004, 05:03:23 PM EDT

Retrieving the customer record anyway: - (admin) - (22) - May 26, 2004, 08:45:08 AM EDT

question - (tablizer) - (21) - May 26, 2004, 12:19:22 PM EDT

Re: question - (admin) - (20) - May 26, 2004, 05:01:17 PM EDT

The other method is to have one column.... - (ChrisR) - (2) - May 26, 2004, 05:06:03 PM EDT

Re: The other method is to have one column.... - (admin) - (1) - May 26, 2004, 05:09:50 PM EDT

That's the spirit!!! -NT - (ChrisR) - May 26, 2004, 05:22:00 PM EDT

I would have to look at the nature of the data -NT - (tablizer) - (16) - May 26, 2004, 07:09:21 PM EDT

Are you kidding?? - (admin) - (15) - May 26, 2004, 07:41:22 PM EDT

suggestion 3 - (tablizer) - (14) - May 27, 2004, 01:43:07 AM EDT

Re: suggestion 3 - (admin) - (13) - May 27, 2004, 08:55:03 AM EDT

bottleneck black box - (tablizer) - (12) - May 27, 2004, 01:23:42 PM EDT

Storing Dictionary as Session variables in ASP - (ChrisR) - (8) - May 27, 2004, 01:30:59 PM EDT

It has gotta go *somewhere* - (tablizer) - (7) - May 27, 2004, 01:52:52 PM EDT

ASP is OO - (ChrisR) - (6) - May 27, 2004, 02:08:10 PM EDT

re: ASP is OO - (tablizer) - (5) - May 27, 2004, 02:28:21 PM EDT

ASP = COM - (ChrisR) - (4) - May 27, 2004, 02:55:24 PM EDT

re: ASP = COM - (tablizer) - (3) - May 27, 2004, 03:18:32 PM EDT

ChiliSoft ASP - (ChrisR) - (2) - May 27, 2004, 03:33:09 PM EDT

Interesting terminology - (FuManChu) - (1) - May 27, 2004, 04:19:21 PM EDT

You're probably correct convention-wise - (ChrisR) - May 27, 2004, 04:32:41 PM EDT

Re: bottleneck black box - (admin) - (2) - May 27, 2004, 03:30:05 PM EDT

how they relate - (tablizer) - (1) - May 27, 2004, 03:47:54 PM EDT

Re: how they relate - (admin) - May 27, 2004, 04:11:02 PM EDT

I don't understand why you mention "eval" -NT - (FuManChu) - (6) - May 25, 2004, 09:30:28 PM EDT

re: I don't understand why you mention "eval" - (tablizer) - (5) - May 26, 2004, 01:27:26 AM EDT

I get it now. - (FuManChu) - (4) - May 26, 2004, 10:57:29 AM EDT

OO is just a (bad) reinvention of 60's databases with - (tablizer) - (3) - May 26, 2004, 12:43:59 PM EDT

No. You are a proponent of OO programming. - (folkert) - (2) - May 26, 2004, 01:10:43 PM EDT

The question that launched a thousand arguments - (tablizer) - (1) - May 26, 2004, 04:17:57 PM EDT

That explains a lot - (FuManChu) - May 26, 2004, 04:21:36 PM EDT

Real FORTRAN! Woo-hoo!
310 ms