Re: Data Layer architecture
- From: Alfredo Novoa <alfredo_novoa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:38:46 +0200
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:38:50 -0700, "Frans Bouma [C# MVP]"
<perseus.usenetNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well, the only think you're achieving is that you look like some
>60-year old gnu-emacs lover who comes in to tell us that VS.NET with
>intellisense is the root of all evil.
VS.NET with intellisense is cool, I use it everyday.
What is not cool is to return to the dark ages of the data managed
directly by the applications transversing pointer labyrinths (the
50's).
> What's also stunning is your serious lack of listening / reading
>capabilities and the talent to realize we all have been to uni/college
>to some degree and have studied the same dreaded books you have studied
>and perhaps even way more than you have done.
I am pretty sure about I read a lot more and a lot better materials
than you. I returned from where you are a long time ago. I am aware of
the OO trade media, and the level is very poor.
> What I find intriguing is that you didn't mention Yourdon in any way
>in your lecturing comments.
His works are not very relevant to this thread.
> I also have failed to see even ONE argument why ALL (not some, but
>ALL) business rules and LOGIC (!) has to be written in code which is
>placed INSIDE the RDBMS.
Indeed, you failed at many things. You only have to check any
introductory textbook. I already have recomended a very good one to
you.
> ... and data is only data. Information is something else.
> OO is just a way to write software, or better: to look at how to
>divide responsibility over what to write to increase re-usability and
>structure.
OO re-usability has nothing to do compared to the possibility to reuse
a whole DBMS.
>> One of the questions was how we should put OO stuff into SQL. His
>> answer was that Bells Labs, with all their talent, had tried four
>> different approaches to this problem and come the conclusion that you
>> should not do it. OO was great for programming but deadly for data.
>> --------
>
> OO == data+behavior.
behavior == integrity + derivation
>> I am developing a new generation RDBMS using C#
>
> a new 'generation' RDBMS? Ah no wonder you want everything INSIDE the
>rdbms!.
Well, it would be cool to have declarative presentation rules in the
database, but it is not about that.
> But what's a new generation? Post-relational database system
>like uniVerse, with 3D tables? Or plain old boring RDBMS like we all
>know so not really 'new generation' ?
Truly Relational DBMS. TRDBMS. A DBMS without the problems of the SQL
DBMS.
Post-Relational does not exist and uniVerse is very primitive.
BTW C# and VS are also interesting for building presentation
applications that use a DBMS properly, although ADO.NET has very
serious flaws.
http://grumpyoldprogrammer.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/7/7/1004708.html
>Not everyone has the same opinion as you do, nor are you the only
>one who knows it all.
But some people have the same opinion as me, and casually they are the
best database experts with hundreds of thousands of books sold. They
are the ones that count.
Regards
.
- References:
- Re: Data Layer architecture
- From: Frans Bouma [C# MVP]
- Re: Data Layer architecture
- From: Alfredo Novoa
- Re: Data Layer architecture
- From: Steve Walker
- Re: Data Layer architecture
- From: Alfredo Novoa
- Re: Data Layer architecture
- From: Steve Walker
- Re: Data Layer architecture
- From: Alfredo Novoa
- Re: Data Layer architecture
- From: Steve Walker
- Re: Data Layer architecture
- From: Alfredo Novoa
- Re: Data Layer architecture
- From: Steve Walker
- Re: Data Layer architecture
- From: Alfredo Novoa
- Re: Data Layer architecture
- From: Frans Bouma [C# MVP]
- Re: Data Layer architecture
- Prev by Date: Re: retrieving MAC address using C# question.
- Next by Date: Thread.Susspend
- Previous by thread: Re: Data Layer architecture
- Next by thread: Re: Data Layer architecture
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|