Re: Object-relational impedence
- From: paul c <toledobysea@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 02:59:53 GMT
Robert Martin wrote:
On 2008-03-06 06:37:19 -0600, JOG <jog@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
Using nonsense words like 'subscope' doesn't do conversation any
favours Robert.
A sub scope is a scope that lives within another scope. The simplest example is the following C code.
{ // parent scope
int i;
int j;
{ // sub scope
int i;
}
}
If high-falutin' lingo like 'lives within another scope' passes for explanation in OO circles no wonder they are perpetuate other babble besides. A newcomer would profit not a bit from the above but a lot from an explanation of a logical stack, which is a simple and clear runtime mechanism (regardless of whether a hardware stack or heap is used). Then he could call it what he wants, once he understands what is really happening on a typical machine. Why are the regulars here encouraging these cross-posters and 'machine as animal' mystics?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Object-relational impedence
- From: Marshall
- Re: Object-relational impedence
- Prev by Date: Re: Mixing OO and DB
- Next by Date: Re: Object-relational impedence
- Previous by thread: Theory and practice
- Next by thread: Re: Object-relational impedence
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|