dventimihasura

> Great, but what is the mismatch you speak of?

Go do some independent study and then maybe we'll talk.

> What it is about the OOP paradigm that you find does not fit this client->relational database application?

It's not me who finds that OOP is a mismatch with relational systems. It's me and many other people. Ted Neward talked about this 20 years ago. Jeff Atwood talked about it 18 years ago. Martin Fowler defended OOP from this criticism but at least he also talked about it, 12 years ago. There's a Wikipedia page on the subject and many related articles over the years. This is well-trod ground.

Now. Does this mean we critics are right? No. It doesn't mean that. It means that this is well-trod ground. It is the topic of a healthy debate that generates one line of criticism of OOP. Functional programming--which I haven't mentioned in this thread until now--is another source of OOP criticism. What's interesting to me at this particular moment is not the substance of these debates ("is the object-relation impedance mismatch real? is mutable state really bad?") or who's right. What's interesting to me is that author of Sigma's Blog doesn't address any of this. I claim that these two topics--the ostensible object-relational impedance mismatch and the mutable state bugaboo of functional programming--are of such primary importance in generating criticism of OOP that any author who sets out to defend OOP from its critics must address these topics in order to be taken seriously. And yet, all this author says is

It seems like a lot of people dislike Object Oriented Programming

They don't say who these people are, what their reasons are for disliking OOP, or why things seem this way to the author. They just accuse unnamed "people" of not understanding OOP and then dive into a bog-standard description of OOP which is well-understood by all the relevant programmers that I know.

None of that answers your questions on the topic of the object-relational mismatch, of course, but then I never promised to explain that topic to you. I might, but then again I might not. If I don't, there are plenty of resources online that you can study for yourself. If you form a killer argument that addresses all issues once and for all, perhaps you should write your own blog post. Surely such a groundbreaking achievement would be worthy of making it all the way to the front page.

Perhaps your request for clarification was added after I replied, or perhaps I just missed it. Charity urges me to accept the fault as mine, so please accept my apology for overlooking what surely could not have been an after the fact revision. In any case, what I was saying was that in my experience, often OOP is applied where it isn't suited, particularly in the application layer between a client and a relational database, and this is the source of much of the criticism of OOP which the OP is trying to deflect. In that case, it isn't OOP critics who don't understand OOP, but rather OOP practitioners who don't understand OOP well enough to know when not to use it. I believe a close reading of my comment reveals that this is what I was saying, so that a clarification isn't strictly needed though it's happily provided.

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.

> 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.

I'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.

Oh, rubbish

https://youtu.be/NGAOLoYbZ6k?si=VQT5iNFhL7wZjPaL

> The most likely situation was that programmers were developing abstractions that matched well to GUIs and those abstractions most closely mapped to OOP.

Bingo

No, I read the article. Did you read my comment or did you just read the first line?

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.

>Harder communication with coworkers, less trust, more conflicts, some people find it hard to work at home and need to be in the office ( ie they do nothing at home ), harder onboarding for new joiners, people misunderstanding the rules ( no you can’t work from vacation site x in country y for tax/insurance reasons ), not feeling part of something and therefore losing interest, etc

I grant that some people might experience those things, but I reject that we should expect all, most, or even many people to experience these things. I know it can't possibly be all, because I personally experience none of them. Moreover, it's easy to see counterarguments or mitigation strategies for every one of these.

Remote comes with benefits. Naturally, it also comes with costs. The same is true for onsite and hybrid as well, of course. For me, the questions are:

- What is the cost benefit comparison for these models?

- Can the costs be mitigated?

In my view, the cost benefit ratio is far more advantageous for remote and the costs can all be mitigated.

What...are the negative aspects of WFH?

No, the OP says explicitly that some people do know:

"OTOH it's likely to be obvious to people actually in the environment long before it has a measurable impact on any kind of balance sheet."

OTOH the OP makes unscientific claims like

OTOH it's likely to be obvious to people actually in the environment long before it has a measurable impact on any kind of balance sheet

in a comment complaining about other people being unscientific. Personally, that's enough for me to discount the whole thing.

And homelessness is out of control in Sacramento, arguably worse than SF. But, I'm sure that has nothing to do with the influx of people and rising housing costs

bingo

Bribing politicians to do what?

Keeping interest rates low, that's what. At least, that's what some of the bribes are from some people.

bingo

> Putting aside your arrogance for a moment

Let's put aside making and taking things personally, shall we? One way to do that is by sticking to the relevant facts, so here's a relevant fact: two of those three companies aren't Bay Area companies. All three of them aren't even San Francisco companies. I think that's relevant if we're talking about San Francisco.

> All things considered VC's and high salaries for workers willing to take on risk has generally been good for San Francisco

That's a matter of judgment. If, say, a SFUSD teacher makes a different judgment because she has to commute from Tracy, I'm not going to say she's wrong.

> Tech workers making a middle class living off of investment money shouldn't be demonized

Who has demonized them? I haven't. I haven't made a moral judgment about this at all. I'm just arguing that economic policy and conditions tend to lead to predictable outcomes, and if we want different outcomes we should choose different policies.

> Correlation doesn't equal causation.

I know, but I wasn't asked for causation or proof. I was asked for data, or evidence. Presumably, I was being asked for evidence consistent with my hypothesis and unlikely to have occurred by random chance. That's what I gave.

Besides which: I never claimed that this was the only factor. I claimed it was a factor. Elsewhere, I acknowledged that there are other factors. I'm sure the the Oregon policies you list are among them.

>You forgot the part where a lot of these big companies are still making buckets of cash

I can't forget something that's not a fact and wouldn't be relevant if it were. A lot of companies did make a lot of cash. Also, a lot didn't. Moreover, revenue is not profitability. Generally speaking, unprofitable firms will find it harder to survive than profitable ones will, without financing.

> you view the ZIRP and VC industry as drivers of inequality

Who ever said that was my view? I never said that. What I said in another comment is that ZIRP and VC funding are were factors that contributed to income inequality. As someone who benefited from that arrangement, I would like to believe otherwise. Unfortunately for me, I don't. Give me a good reason to and maybe I will.

bingo

Yes. Homelessness in San Francisco tended to diverge from the national average over this period. So did San Francisco housing prices. This was the period of many unprofitable Bay Area and San Francisco unicorns.

Now, I shared my beliefs. Let's hear yours. What do you think happens when one group of people like tech workers in a city is handed large salaries that are not constrained by market forces like profitability? How does that help someone in that city who is not a tech worker?

It's hard to predict the future. All I can say is that these are forces pushing in various directions, creating tendencies. Personally, I would say ZIRP is a factor in income inequality, but not the only one. There are others:

- monetary policy

- trade policy

- labor policy

- patent and copyright policy

- even foreign policy

I have lived in San Francisco for 25 years. Try again.

Sure. Personally, I believe San Francisco restaurants (for example) had less ability to bid up salaries in a highly-competitive labor market while using generous endowments from VCs flush with cash in a ZIRP climate in order to weather many unprofitable quarters the way that San Francisco tech unicorns like Uber and Twitter did. I believe that San Francisco restaurants, like restaurants anywhere else, cannot survive more than a few unprofitable quarters. Besides restaurant workers, I believe this applies to education workers, retail workers, and many healthcare workers who nevertheless have to compete in the same city as tech workers for: housing, food, services, etc. I believe that contributed to the income inequality which we already know grew in San Francisco over this period. Moreover, I believe when housing prices tilt upward dramatically in the way they did in San Francisco over this period, people at the bottom margin predictably will fall off of that margin. Some of them will become homeless, and homelessness tends to intersect with substance abuse.

That's what I believe tends to happen when one group of people (let's say, "tech workers") have salaries wildly divergent from everyone else who lives in that place. But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe everyone benefits equally when only a subset of people get very large salaries. I dunno. What do you think?

What the end of 0% interest rates means for people who are not software engineers:

- less income inequality

- less competition in the housing market

- less homelessness

1. Where did VCs get the capital to fund those small to medium companies?

2. What does ZIRP do to stock appreciation? Does it tend to suppress it or enhance it?

3. What massive profits?

It seems to me like there are people who have profited from it.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/arsenal-home-dani...

This is a nice treatment, but I think it omits one other option which is a variation of the first option, if you like: "vertical scaling". When the load exceeds what can be done by the single box that you already bought, just buy a bigger single box that can do more. Yes, often that won't work and it will, as the author says, require a complete rethinking of the architecture of the system, but often it will not.