> Great, but what is the mismatch you speak of?
Go do some independent study and then maybe we'll talk.
Go do some independent study and then maybe we'll talk.
You keep pointing to the object-relational mismatch, which, while a thing, has no more to do with OOP than it does functional programming. It pertains to object-based programming. That is something else entirely.
Understandably, those who don't understand OOP often confuse OOP with object-based programming. Is that the problem here? Just that you don't understand OOP?
Fair that fluidity of language means that anyone can define OOP as they wish, and if they want to define OOP to be equivalent to OBP, good for them. They wouldn't be the first. And if we were discussing this topic in a vacuum we could set out a proclamation that defines OOP to be equal to OBP. However, OOP was already and explicitly defined by the article that setup the context for the following discussion, and the definition used is Kay's – the one that has nothing to do with objects. Other definitions for OOP would be clearly off-topic.
Perhaps it is that you are purposefully trying to go off-topic? Indeed, this thread started because someone (not me!) questioned exactly that.
If it is simply that you don't know how to clarify what you mean, why not just say so?
I don't have to. That's already explained in the standard literature on the topics of the object-relational mismatch and on functional critique of mutable state.
> You keep pointing to the object-relational mismatch, which, while a thing, has no more to do with OOP than it does functional programming. It pertains to object-based programming. That is something else entirely.
And I say that the object-relational mismatch does have more to do with OOP than it does with functional programming. If you want to make unfounded claims, two can play at that game.
> However, OOP was already and explicitly defined by the article that setup the context for the following discussion, and the definition used is Kay's
Point to the place on the doll where the article explicitly defines OOP and uses Kay's definition to do it.
> Perhaps it is that you are purposefully trying to go off-topic? Indeed, this thread started because someone (not me!) questioned exactly that.
And yet that person never came back. You can't rule out the possibility that this person was satisfied by my subsequent clarifications.
> If it is simply that you don't know how to clarify what you mean, why not just say so?
You first.
Understood. You have asserted that many times now. But what you are trying to say has not been made clear.
Let's break this down. As defined by context, OOP means: messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. Indeed, there exist other OOP definitions, but that is the one that was defined here.
I think we can rule out "local retention and protection and hiding of state-process" from the discussion. Hiding means that even if there is some kind of relational database access happening behind the curtain, we cannot know about it. If we don't know about it, we cannot talk about it.
That leaves messaging and extreme late-binding. It is not clear to me what it is about messaging and/or extreme late-binding that is at odds with relational databases. This is where I seek clarification.
While you pointed to the work of Neward and Atwood, all I could find from them was discussion about the pitfalls of trying to model relational databases as a particular object model. They say nothing about messaging or extreme late-binding. Unfortunately, they were of no help here.
Point to the place on the doll where the article author defines OOP.
Given that you don't know how to clarify your original message, perhaps we can still salvage something here? Let's assume that OOP is by another definition. Your choice. Define it however you please. Then explain how relational databases fit into that definition.
No, this has been covered exactly once. I asked 4 hours ago in this sub-thread this question, but you didn't answer it. I also asked again 3 hours ago in this sub-thread. I also asked a related question in another sub-thread 3 hours ago. You answered it one time 2 hours ago with "First thing you read. That's where definitions go." in the other sub-thread, then 1 hour ago in this sub-thread to its second query you said This has been covered several times which it absolutely not has been. THIS, dear readers, is what we call "bad faith."
> Given that you don't know how to clarify your original message, perhaps we can still salvage something here? Let's assume that OOP is by another definition. Your choice. Define it however you please. Then explain how relational databases fit into that definition.
Absolutely not. You have acted in bad faith, have been argumentative, have been snide, have been condescending, and have made things personal throughout these debates. I will absolutely not be corresponding with you in HN comments on this topic or on any other any longer. I would do so "in-person" in a Zoom call if you had the stones for it, but I doubt you do.
I count three times in this thread (plus apparently again in another thread, although that has no relevance to this one). I respect that I did not convey it in an understandable way. Communication is hard. But it is not clear to me what was interpreted instead, in order to allow me to turn the ship in the right direction.
> I will absolutely not be corresponding with you in HN comments on this topic or on any other any longer.
Because we wouldn't be able to figure that if you just stopped corresponding...?
> I would do so "in-person" in a Zoom call
Sure, I'll listen in if you want to expand upon how relational databases pertain to your definition of OOP. If you seek a debate, as suggested above, no thanks. High school debate club is best left for high school students. I did not engage in debate with you here for good reason, and I will not engage in debate elsewhere either.