Subj : Re: Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?] To : comp.programming,comp.object From : Chris Sonnack Date : Fri Jul 01 2005 03:48 pm topmind writes: >>>> It appears that because your experience is limited to relational >>>> databases, >>> >>> Limited to? RDBMS are behind some of the largest applications around. >> >> Your comprehension of basic logic is abysmal. >> >> First, if you lived in China (one of the biggest countries) all your >> life, your experience would be *limited* to living in one place. >> >> Second, the size and power of RDBMSes has no connection to YOUR >> experience. > > I read your statement as an implication that applications that use > DB's were small and/or simple. The original statement was not mine, but I understand exactly what he meant, which was that you appear to have worked in a database-centric environment doing primarily report-based work. You don't seem to have denied this, so I'm assuming he was basically correct. From *our* conversation you don't appear to be an experienced programmer to me, or at least not highly experienced, and you don't appear to have much in the way of OOD skills. (If I'm wrong, I apologize, but that's how it seems.) This has nothing to do with DBSes themselves. Databases are used in most trivial of applications as well as in the most complicated. In and of themselves, databases say nothing about the complexity of the application. >>> I don't understand why you suggest that reporting systems are >>> inherently "less complex" than whatever you have in mind. >> >> Because it's true. It's understandable you don't realize that, because >> you've lived in "China" all your professional life (it seems). > > You are wrong. Like I said elsewhere, I have worked on many kinds of > business applications, not just reporting, and one is not inherently > more simple than the other. Can you present evidence of this alleged > inherent simplicity? Certainly. Business applications (and I've BEEN a corporate programmer for two decades and have extensively used RDBSes) are highly, if not 100%, deterministic. They (biz apps) tend to involve data storage and retrieval and data reporting. They tend to be based on a *relatively* small set of business rules with a relatively small set of permutations. For truly complex software, consider voice or image recognition, or the software used by physicists to delve into quantum physics, or digital signal processing, or advanced mathematical programming, of the computer generated imaging software used in the movies. For that matter, many compilers are vastly more complicated than most business apps. How do I know this is more complex than biz apps? Because, as I've said, I've been *doing* biz apps for 20 years, and at least some of the software fields I listed above are well beyond me. Trust me, especially with the frameworks and tools available today, biz apps are easy. > And even if it was true, at least you seem to agree that it is an area > where polymorphism does not help much. No, I never agreed with that. I used p/m quite a lot, actually. > Can I at least get you to admit > that? An admission that polymorphism is NOT a universal, > general-purpose technique is an important revelation. If you mean it's not useful in every program, of course I agree. Very little is useful in *every* program. -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .