3 ms·

Active 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 clarif

Active 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.
  - dventimihasura 3y ago
    Whether it's "active record" or "ActiveRecord", with or without caps, with or without spaces, I'm not persuaded these are different things. If you want me to believe that they are, I invite you to try to persuade me. While I'm inviting you to do that, let me also invite you to accept what people tell you about themselves in lieu of what you infer about themselves. I was talking about OOP. You said that I seemed to be talking about "active record." I assured you that I was not. Setting aside sophistry about caps and spaces, any disinterested third party observer would agree that it's obvious I've addressed what you have inferred. Therefore, I consider the matter settled. I'm talking about OOP and not active record. I will not address this topic further with you.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > I invite you to try to persuade me. Why? I enjoy and benefit from the fact that you think a software library and a theoretical concept are the same thing. Never change. > I'm talking about OOP and not active record. Yes. We established that in my very first comment. However, I stated that it reads like you were talking about active record, and that is why it was asked if you could clarify how it pertains to OOP, given that we know you are actually talking about OOP. If you don't know how to clarify your message, why not just say so?
      - dventimihasura 3y ago
        Jesus, and now you're erasing your tracks by deleting your comments, and those of other people along with it, like you just did in this sub-thread.

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.
- dventimihasura 3y ago
  Whether it's "active record" or "ActiveRecord", with or without caps, with or without spaces, I'm not persuaded these are different things. If you want me to believe that they are, I invite you to try to persuade me. While I'm inviting you to do that, let me also invite you to accept what people tell you about themselves in lieu of what you infer about themselves. I was talking about OOP. You said that I seemed to be talking about "active record." I assured you that I was not. Setting aside sophistry about caps and spaces, any disinterested third party observer would agree that it's obvious I've addressed what you have inferred. Therefore, I consider the matter settled. I'm talking about OOP and not active record. I will not address this topic further with you.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > I invite you to try to persuade me. Why? I enjoy and benefit from the fact that you think a software library and a theoretical concept are the same thing. Never change. > I'm talking about OOP and not active record. Yes. We established that in my very first comment. However, I stated that it reads like you were talking about active record, and that is why it was asked if you could clarify how it pertains to OOP, given that we know you are actually talking about OOP. If you don't know how to clarify your message, why not just say so?
    - dventimihasura 3y ago
      Jesus, and now you're erasing your tracks by deleting your comments, and those of other people along with it, like you just did in this sub-thread.