Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek@eranova.si> writes:
Hi guys,
Just to conclude this topic: there is a nice talk between Dave Thomas (of OTI fame where IBM VisualAge Smalltalk and nowadays VA Smalltalk came out), James Robertson and David Buck in recent Independent Misinterpretations:
IM 67: Have Objects Failed Us? http://www.jarober.com/blog/blogView?entry=3507708198
What I like is a discussion about OO vs. relational world and ORM in the second half, which is also by my opinion the reason why OO didn't succeed more as it did, and why is considered hard for most of developers until our days. I thin OO has clearly won hands down. Look in every languages these days. There are classes and objects. Even in the "main-stream" languages like C#, and Java it's not a question whether OO but only how. There are still things lacking. That are blocks (I know they wer introduced recently in both Java and C#) but probably not used that much. The same is true for ORM, it's not if but how it's done. I for my part see the biggest mistakte in doing that. Yes one can it make work, but it's always a break and/or one is not using OO as it was meant to be used.
Since ages we get promised that OODBS or the like are the future but what do you really have key/value pairs (that's since the good ole Berkeley DB times) now the DBs got the name NoSQL, but in the end the complete IT infrastructure relies and is build on RDBs (maybe with some O extension in it. I guess therefor we'll be stuck with new approaches to persistence through RDBs. Some will work under certain limits and others's won't. And I don't think it's considered hard to do OO with Smalltalk, Ruby etc. It is hard for C++ because this is a language full of rites and that's makes it look that hard. Just remember the big hype around Talingent? Now what's left of it. Regards Friedrich -- Q-Software Solutions GmbH; Sitz: Bruchsal; Registergericht: Mannheim Registriernummer: HRB232138; Geschaeftsfuehrer: Friedrich Dominicus