5 ms·

>I expect that deviation is why we're having trouble communicating here. No the deviation is deliberately manufactured here. The oop pedantism is obvious. Smal

>I expect that deviation is why we're having trouble communicating here. No the deviation is deliberately manufactured here. The oop pedantism is obvious. Smalltalk was the first but the word as evolved, everyone knows that. Including you but you pretend not to know this. >While I appreciate the purity bent you say you're off on, I never said this It was said by me and another poster that YOU are the one off on this bent of being overly pedantic about terms. I think you're just trolling now. This kind of thing is against the rules here fyi.

randomdata 4y ago
Funny that I am the one being called pedantic, despite flat out acknowledging that I am using the term informally. Yes, again, technically a SQL relation isn't actually a relation. I get it. But we all know what relation means with respect to the conversation, so what is to be gained by ignoring that context? Formal definition matters only if you haven't reached a shared understanding. Before definitions entered the discussion we started at that end, but all the information necessary to understand what relation means in SQL-speak, particularly with respect to ORM, has been given. There is no value in hanging off any other definition and doing so is merely a straw man. Whatever you want to call it, the abstraction that converts between the database's data model and the application's data model is not the same abstraction that builds queries. They are very much distinct operations and ORM is only concerned with one of them (hint: Not the one that builds queries).
- fckgnad 4y ago
  You are being pedantic by virtue of even turning the conversation in this direction. Stop trolling.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    The conversation hasn't turned. We are still waiting on examples of ORM toolkits that don't provide separation between the ORM and the query building operations. I suspect ad hominem entered the chat because one couldn't be found, but I'll continue to wait as I love to learn new things.
    - fckgnad 4y ago
      It turned when you decided to pretend that you thought all OOP meant smalltalk style OOP and when you chose to act like you were talking about relations in terms of sets and not sql. You pretended you didn't know the context when it's fairly obvious what the context is. You are playing a part. You don't love to learn new things, that is not your objective here, your objective is to troll. This conversation is over.
      - randomdata 4y ago
        OOP in the discussion was undefined prior to me choosing a definition. Smalltalk-style OOP is quite significant to the topic as what are probably the only respected ORM toolkits (CoreData, ActiveRecord) lean heavily on the facilities provided by what you call the Smalltalk-style OOP paradigm. I might even go as far as to say that the active record pattern is unusable without Smalltalk-style OOP. Other languages have certainly tried, but it gets janky really quickly. Now, it's okay if OOP means something different to you. Words are just tools to help with communication, not some source of pride or identity. That is why definitions were laid out to ensure that we weren't just talking past each other. Despite this making you believe I am young, in my 30 years of development experience I've learned that you can't assume everyone uses the same definition. In software, it is actually quite rare to find any common definition across any sizeable group of developers. There is no logical reason to leave a discussion because what OOP meant to me differs from what OOP meant to you. The OOP talk that was present early in this thread didn't even carry into the remainder of the conversation about ORM, so it is moot anyway. The reality is that this conversation has reached a dead end because there is nothing left to talk about. We've established that ORM and query building are different operations, which rounds out the entire topic of the thread, and that's that.
        fckgnad 4y ago
        >There is no logical reason to leave a discussion because what OOP meant to me differs from what OOP meant to you there is reason to do so if you're trolling.

randomdata 4y ago

Funny that I am the one being called pedantic, despite flat out acknowledging that I am using the term informally. Yes, again, technically a SQL relation isn't actually a relation. I get it. But we all know what relation means with respect to the conversation, so what is to be gained by ignoring that context? Formal definition matters only if you haven't reached a shared understanding. Before definitions entered the discussion we started at that end, but all the information necessary to understand what relation means in SQL-speak, particularly with respect to ORM, has been given. There is no value in hanging off any other definition and doing so is merely a straw man. Whatever you want to call it, the abstraction that converts between the database's data model and the application's data model is not the same abstraction that builds queries. They are very much distinct operations and ORM is only concerned with one of them (hint: Not the one that builds queries).

fckgnad 4y ago
You are being pedantic by virtue of even turning the conversation in this direction. Stop trolling.
- randomdata 4y ago
  The conversation hasn't turned. We are still waiting on examples of ORM toolkits that don't provide separation between the ORM and the query building operations. I suspect ad hominem entered the chat because one couldn't be found, but I'll continue to wait as I love to learn new things.
  - fckgnad 4y ago
    It turned when you decided to pretend that you thought all OOP meant smalltalk style OOP and when you chose to act like you were talking about relations in terms of sets and not sql. You pretended you didn't know the context when it's fairly obvious what the context is. You are playing a part. You don't love to learn new things, that is not your objective here, your objective is to troll. This conversation is over.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      OOP in the discussion was undefined prior to me choosing a definition. Smalltalk-style OOP is quite significant to the topic as what are probably the only respected ORM toolkits (CoreData, ActiveRecord) lean heavily on the facilities provided by what you call the Smalltalk-style OOP paradigm. I might even go as far as to say that the active record pattern is unusable without Smalltalk-style OOP. Other languages have certainly tried, but it gets janky really quickly. Now, it's okay if OOP means something different to you. Words are just tools to help with communication, not some source of pride or identity. That is why definitions were laid out to ensure that we weren't just talking past each other. Despite this making you believe I am young, in my 30 years of development experience I've learned that you can't assume everyone uses the same definition. In software, it is actually quite rare to find any common definition across any sizeable group of developers. There is no logical reason to leave a discussion because what OOP meant to me differs from what OOP meant to you. The OOP talk that was present early in this thread didn't even carry into the remainder of the conversation about ORM, so it is moot anyway. The reality is that this conversation has reached a dead end because there is nothing left to talk about. We've established that ORM and query building are different operations, which rounds out the entire topic of the thread, and that's that.
      - fckgnad 4y ago
        >There is no logical reason to leave a discussion because what OOP meant to me differs from what OOP meant to you there is reason to do so if you're trolling.