Your "solution" to such bloat was HQL, yes or no?

Post #182,983 by tablizer 11/4/04 11:49:05 PM Reply	Your "solution" to such bloat was HQL, yes or no? ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #182,987 by admin 11/5/04 12:06:32 AM Reply	It was a solution, yes. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #183,074 by ben_tilly 11/5/04 11:45:07 AM Reply	Since you seem to be slow... Scott's point is that you had this battle. Many times. You've lost. You've even admitted defeat. Unless you have something truly novel to say, please save everyone time and energy by letting it drop this time. Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,130 by tablizer 11/5/04 4:59:55 PM 11/5/04 5:00:11 PM Reply	I did NOT "lose". His solution was variation on SQL and NOT OOP ________________ oop.ismad.com Edited by tablizer Nov. 5, 2004, 05:00:11 PM EST Expand All History
Post #183,133 by ben_tilly 11/5/04 5:11:07 PM Reply	In your universe, perhaps His solution was variation on SQL and NOT OOP Let me go back to [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=156638\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=156638] and see. Ah yes. Right. Scott was talking about an object-relational mapper. Which means that the overall example is going to involve a lot of OOP. Once again you're talking out of your ass and hoping that none of us will catch where you're fudging the truth. Once again your hopes are misplaced. Please go away and try this elsewhere. Thanks, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,136 by tablizer 11/5/04 5:14:31 PM 11/5/04 5:16:02 PM Reply	The mapper did not reduce his code size Ah yes. Right. Scott was talking about an object-relational mapper. Which means that the overall example is going to involve a lot of OOP. It was not the mapper that allowed him to shorten his queries. Again, just because something exists does not necessarily mean it is better. Plus, how come you cannot use your techniques to shorten challenge #6? ________________ oop.ismad.com Edited by tablizer Nov. 5, 2004, 05:16:02 PM EST Expand All History
Post #183,137 by ben_tilly 11/5/04 5:20:03 PM Reply	Bryce, you lost this one already. I'm not going to continue this discussion. I have a job, and I have work that needs to get done. This conversation has happened before, and you've lost. Repeatedly and decisively. If you wish to read this as, "Bryce has more free time than Ben" you'd be perfectly correct. I'll let you waste someone else's time if anyone is interested. Regards, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,156 by tablizer 11/5/04 7:12:13 PM 11/5/04 7:15:01 PM Reply	I did NOT fscken lose. He gave no code-size proof. Zilch. You guys have a warped sense of evidence. Did you flunk science class? ________________ oop.ismad.com Edited by tablizer Nov. 5, 2004, 07:15:01 PM EST Expand All History
Post #183,195 by drewk 11/6/04 12:23:25 AM Reply	Why is code size your (apparently) sole criterion? Is it because that's the "best" metric? Please show your proof. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #183,424 by tablizer 11/8/04 2:43:37 AM Reply	You are welcome to present ANY metric you can justify The common common metrics that people more or less agree on are: * Once and only once - ridding duplication * Easier to change - change scenarios are given and the impact on code is analyzed * Code size - less code is generally better I am not saying these are necessarily the best or most complete, but they are the easiest to analyze and communicate about up to this point. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #183,436 by drewk 11/8/04 9:05:55 AM Reply	Thank you I asked for proof of the value of your metric. You replied that it's common and people more or less agree. So popularity is your criterion. OOP is popular. Therefore, OOP is good. Thank you for this admission of defeat. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #183,668 by tablizer 11/8/04 11:47:03 PM Reply	Usually people don't question those much If you have some better ones, then please describe them. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #183,447 by admin 11/8/04 9:25:46 AM Reply	We've already been over change scenarios Re-read the thread. You gave up on the change metric because of the branching and source code control issues. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #183,671 by tablizer 11/8/04 11:52:31 PM Reply	re: We've already been over change scenarios You gave up on the change metric because of the branching and source code control issues. "Branching"? I am not sure what you are refering to. Version branching or flow logic branching? As far as version management, the existing tools are biased toward files. I agreed to that fact. However, that is not an inborn inherent fault of tables, which was my point above. ________________ oop.ismad.com

Welcome to IWETHEY!