Re: Flash to JOG
- From: JOG <jog@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 13, 11:40 am, "David Cressey" <cresse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that
there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not
always agree with you, put you have commanded a level of respect from us
that makes Perryman's attempt at condescension ludicrous.
You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if
you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck.
I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol
has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that
the OO vanguard (as opposed to the rest of us who just use OO as a
necessasry tool) have trouble with the conceptual/logical layer
distinction that we all seem to see as bright as day. If nothing else
our discussions with comp.oo have made me wonder why there are no
programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the
concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Flash to JOG
- From: Cimode
- Re: Flash to JOG
- From: Bob Badour
- Re: Flash to JOG
- References:
- Flash to JOG
- From: David Cressey
- Flash to JOG
- Prev by Date: Flash to JOG
- Next by Date: Re: History of 1NF
- Previous by thread: Flash to JOG
- Next by thread: Re: Flash to JOG
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
