2 ms·
If your only reference is Wikipedia, it's going to be hard to have a productive conversation. The fact that these two things share words, doesn't make them rel
by tomnipotent 5y ago
If your only reference is Wikipedia, it's going to be hard to have a productive conversation.
The fact that these two things share words, doesn't make them related other than the fact the same English words are used. If I were to see an ORM-tied object in the business logic of a DDD-based application, something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.
- hardwaresofton 5y agoIt's not the only reference, but I bring it out because you and I are talking past each other, and shared definitions or discovering differences between our definitions and what others think is the only way past an impasse like that. Thanks for the attempt at discussion, but looks like there's no more productive discussion to be had.
- tomnipotent 5y agoWe're not talking past each other, rather you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of DDD but feel confident to speak matter-of-factly about it. There's as much a relationship between DDD and ORMs as there is between Agile and ORMs or queues and ORMs.
- hardwaresofton 5y agoWell so far all you've done is suggest that Wikipedia is wrong (or using it as as a source is wrong?) and you're right, so I hope you'll excuse me for not putting any stock in your opinion. If you do happen to find time to put your thoughts down to paper with some sources anywhere in the public sphere I'd love to read about it! :)