4 ms·
Some people don't understand OOP, sure. That's the nature of things. However, many of us do understand. Consequently, nothing here comes as a surprise. And yet,
by dventimihasura 3y ago
Some people don't understand OOP, sure. That's the nature of things. However, many of us do understand. Consequently, nothing here comes as a surprise. And yet, we still think OOP has drawbacks where it's often applied, even if it has benefits in other applications. If nothing else, one benefit is that it helps us organize code segments and reason about function dispatch. One drawback is that it's not well-suited where it's often applied. This is the well-known "impedence mismatch." When that happens, it's worth asking if there are other ways to organize code segments and reason about function dispatch, which are better-suited so they don't experience these drawbacks. There are. Database constraints are one. Database triggers are another. They're not the only ones and they're not perfect, but then neither is OOP, and at least they have the virtue of being mated to the underlying data model perfectly.
Therefore, before we rush to say that other people don't understand OOP, perhaps we should consider the possibility that WE don't understand OOP if we insist on applying it where it doesn't apply.
- golly_ned 3y agoDid you read the article, or are you just responding to the title?
- dventimihasura 3y agoNo, I read the article. Did you read my comment or did you just read the first line?
- randomdata 3y agoI, for one, tried to read the comment. I got the impression it was trying to talk about the drawbacks of active record, echoing many of the common criticisms of active record, but which has little to do with OOP. Perhaps you could clarify what you were trying to say with respect to OOP?
- dventimihasura 3y agoI'm the author of the comment and yet I have never used ActiveRecord, which was coined by Martin Fowler 2 years after I was using iBATIS and was popularized by Ruby on Rails a year later. As the author of the comment, I can assure you the comment was not referring to ActiveRecord, a topic that was not mentioned either in the comment or in the original article.
- randomdata 3y agoActive record, with a space, not ActiveRecord. Not sure how you managed to jump all the way to Ruby on Rails. Regardless, the ask was "Perhaps you could clarify what you were trying to say with respect to OOP?", not "Have you used (active record|ActiveRecord)?" Even if you somehow managed to not see the space, and didn't notice the capitalization, the response still doesn't logically follow. Did you not read the comment?
- dventimihasura 3y ago> Not sure how you managed to jump all the way to Ruby on Rails. I said that ActiveRecord was popularized by Ruby on Rails in 2004. I feel I was quite clear on this subject. > Regardless, the ask was "Perhaps you could clarify what you were trying to say with respect to OOP?" Sorry. I wrote my comment before you had revised yours. If you'd like to let me know when you're done with your revisions, I'm happy to wait.
- randomdata 3y ago> I said that ActiveRecord was popularized by Ruby on Rails in 2004. Thanks for the random history lesson and all, but why are you bringing up ActiveRecord in the first place? The topic is OOP, not a library that is bundled with a web framework created many years ago. Did you not even read your own comment? For a brief moment you seemed to recognize that the subject is about OOP.
- 3y ago
- smitty1e 3y agoThe response has an AI pap flavor.
- dventimihasura 3y agoYour response has an AI pap flavor.
- ryanseys 3y agoTIL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object%E2%80%93relational_impedance_mismatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object%E2%80%93relational_impe...