Did you forget the link?
92 karma · joined November 14, 2022
Netflix is not enterprise. Walmart is.
As for DynamoDB, is that database more common, or less common, than relational databases like Oracle and MSSQL?
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=S...
As for cloud service SDKs, are you saying that many node backends rely on cloud SDKs?
Are there? I honestly don't know. I feel like it depends on how you count them. Are there JS/TS/nodejs "Backends For Frontends" (BFFs)? Yeah, I could see that, but then in that case there's at least as many other backends behind them, probably written in something else. Are there JS/TS/nodejs backends, mediating interaction with upstream databases in large enterprise organizations? I highly doubt it.
If I'm wrong about any of this, hopefully people will line up to tell me how. That would be great! It would be great to talk about how people are going about this out in "the real world" (not tutorials and "Getting Started" guides) and see what can be learned on all sides. Anyway, thanks much! Peace.
Questions don't assume things. People do.
> The comment quite literally calls something wrong ("The comment you are replying to makes so many mistakes"
Yes, but it doesn't literally say, "I'm not gonna explain why." Why did you omit that part?
What do you say, doctorpangloss? Do you think this is a fairly accurate depiction of the sentiment you were expressing?
"this is wrong, but I'm not gonna explain why"
I doubt this person will respond, of course (they're not obliged to).
Who are you quoting?
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.
We don't know that it was deferred to Kay. You just assumed that it was.
> To which I asked: "Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention?"
I apologize. How foolish of me to assume you would notice that I assiduously avoided doing anything other than to refer to you by "you" and to refer to the blog article's author as "the author." Let me rephrase.
As a critic of OOP, my definition of OOP includes inheritance, polymorphism, and classes. An example of a programming language that fits this definition is Java. While my criticisms don't depend on those properties, nevertheless that is the definition that I personally use. Now, based on your comments, I believe your argument is:
as a critic of OOP you are not using the defintion of OOP that I use
That's what I believe your argument is, but I'm interested in your beliefs about your own argument. What do you believe your argument is?
The author says this about "subtyping" and "inheritance", terms that do not appear in Kay's definition at the top:
Another term that – while not technically necessary – is often associated with OOP is inheritance.
Subtyping is not exclusive to OOP
Evidently, subtyping and inheritance are not mutually exclusive of OOP and in fact often co-occur with OOP. The author certainly doesn't say that they in and of themselves--or "polymorphism" for that matter--causes people to misunderstand OOP (though they might misunderstand the terms themselves, which could cause confusion). You and I don't know for sure what the author's definition of OOP is, and yet you're more confident that it doesn't include subtyping, inheritance, and polymorphism because the author mentioned them? Is that your final answer?
> Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention?
What is it you often say? Oh right: "Did you even read" what was written? In this case I didn't say:
To sum up, the author's argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you?
Instead I said
To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you?
The careful reader will note that I was asking about YOUR argument, not THE AUTHOR'S ARGUMENT. So no, I didn't get confirmation from the author that this was their intention. I was seeking confirmation from you that this was your intention. Well? Is it?
Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the article author that this was their intention? After all, the first thing you read in the article is a quote, but then there's a second quote later from a different person, which doesn't specifically address the first quote. Is that also a definition?
No, in reality, you don't know the author's definition. Neither of us does, which is why we have to make an educated guess (an "inference"). You've guessed evidently that the author's definition is identical to Kay's. Well, let's consider your confidence around that guess. When the author discusses other topics not included in that definition, like inheritance and polymorphism, does that tend to increase or decrease your confidence in your guess?
Finally, just as I'm not obliged to use your definition and you're not obliged to use mine, neither of us is obliged to use the blog article author's definition either. I certainly didn't agree to that, and there's good reason not to, which is that there are other people involved: the OOP critics.
The article author accuses OOP critics of not understanding OOP. Personally, I think that gives us a reason to use THEIR definition of OOP, not the author's. That is, unless the author's argument "they don't understand OOP" is essentially "they're using the wrong definition of OOP." But then, since there is no right or wrong definition of OOP, that could only mean, "they're using a different definition of OOP from the one I'm using", which they're free to do.
To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you?
Has already been defined where exactly? Yes, evidently you believe it has been defined in the article, but where exactly in the article did that occur. Please be precise.
Point to the place on the doll where the article author defines OOP.
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.