Flash to JOG

#11

JOG wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 13, 11:40 am, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that
there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not
always agree with you, put you have commanded a level of respect from us
that makes Perryman's attempt at condescension ludicrous.

You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if
you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck.

I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol
has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that
the OO vanguard (as opposed to the rest of us who just use OO as a
necessasry tool) have trouble with the conceptual/logical layer
distinction that we all seem to see as bright as day. If nothing else
our discussions with comp.oo have made me wonder why there are no
programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the
concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence.

Alphora's Dataphor

#12

JOG wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 13, 11:40 am, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that
there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not
always agree with you, put you have commanded a level of respect from us
that makes Perryman's attempt at condescension ludicrous.

You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if
you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck.

I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol
has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that
the OO vanguard (as opposed to the rest of us who just use OO as a
necessasry tool) have trouble with the conceptual/logical layer
distinction that we all seem to see as bright as day. If nothing else
our discussions with comp.oo have made me wonder why there are no
programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the
concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence.

Alphora's Dataphor

#13

JOG wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 13, 11:40 am, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that
there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not
always agree with you, put you have commanded a level of respect from us
that makes Perryman's attempt at condescension ludicrous.

You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if
you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck.

I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol
has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that
the OO vanguard (as opposed to the rest of us who just use OO as a
necessasry tool) have trouble with the conceptual/logical layer
distinction that we all seem to see as bright as day. If nothing else
our discussions with comp.oo have made me wonder why there are no
programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the
concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence.

Alphora's Dataphor

#14

JOG wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 13, 11:40 am, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that
there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not
always agree with you, put you have commanded a level of respect from us
that makes Perryman's attempt at condescension ludicrous.

You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if
you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck.

I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol
has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that
the OO vanguard (as opposed to the rest of us who just use OO as a
necessasry tool) have trouble with the conceptual/logical layer
distinction that we all seem to see as bright as day. If nothing else
our discussions with comp.oo have made me wonder why there are no
programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the
concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence.

Alphora's Dataphor

#15

JOG wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 13, 11:40 am, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that
there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not
always agree with you, put you have commanded a level of respect from us
that makes Perryman's attempt at condescension ludicrous.

You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if
you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck.

I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol
has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that
the OO vanguard (as opposed to the rest of us who just use OO as a
necessasry tool) have trouble with the conceptual/logical layer
distinction that we all seem to see as bright as day. If nothing else
our discussions with comp.oo have made me wonder why there are no
programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the
concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence.

Alphora's Dataphor

#16

JOG wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 13, 11:40 am, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that
there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not
always agree with you, put you have commanded a level of respect from us
that makes Perryman's attempt at condescension ludicrous.

You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if
you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck.

I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol
has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that
the OO vanguard (as opposed to the rest of us who just use OO as a
necessasry tool) have trouble with the conceptual/logical layer
distinction that we all seem to see as bright as day. If nothing else
our discussions with comp.oo have made me wonder why there are no
programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the
concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence.

Alphora's Dataphor

#17

JOG wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 13, 11:40 am, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that
there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not
always agree with you, put you have commanded a level of respect from us
that makes Perryman's attempt at condescension ludicrous.

You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if
you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck.

I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol
has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that
the OO vanguard (as opposed to the rest of us who just use OO as a
necessasry tool) have trouble with the conceptual/logical layer
distinction that we all seem to see as bright as day. If nothing else
our discussions with comp.oo have made me wonder why there are no
programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the
concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence.

Alphora's Dataphor

#18

JOG wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 13, 11:40 am, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that
there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not
always agree with you, put you have commanded a level of respect from us
that makes Perryman's attempt at condescension ludicrous.

You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if
you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck.

I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol
has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that
the OO vanguard (as opposed to the rest of us who just use OO as a
necessasry tool) have trouble with the conceptual/logical layer
distinction that we all seem to see as bright as day. If nothing else
our discussions with comp.oo have made me wonder why there are no
programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the
concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence.

Alphora's Dataphor

#19

JOG wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 13, 11:40 am, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that
there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not
always agree with you, put you have commanded a level of respect from us
that makes Perryman's attempt at condescension ludicrous.

You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if
you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck.

I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol
has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that
the OO vanguard (as opposed to the rest of us who just use OO as a
necessasry tool) have trouble with the conceptual/logical layer
distinction that we all seem to see as bright as day. If nothing else
our discussions with comp.oo have made me wonder why there are no
programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the
concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence.

Alphora's Dataphor

#20

On Mar 13, 2:24 pm, Bob Badour <bbad... (AT) pei (DOT) sympatico.ca> wrote:

Quote:

JOG wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:40 am, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

As you decide whether or not to respond to Perryman, please consider that
there are a several of us who read what you write with interest. We may not
always agree with you, put you have commanded a level of respect from us
that makes Perryman's attempt at condescension ludicrous.

You need not descend to his level to defend your reputation with us. And if
you're trying to raise him to your level, good luck.

I appreciate the comments David (although I think most of the vitriol
has been directed at topmind in this case). In general I think that
the OO vanguard (as opposed to the rest of us who just use OO as a
necessasry tool) have trouble with the conceptual/logical layer
distinction that we all seem to see as bright as day. If nothing else
our discussions with comp.oo have made me wonder why there are no
programming languages that actively delineate the two, and break the
concept that systems such as RM are merely for persistence.

Alphora's Dataphor

I was trying to look into D4 recently, and was worried it had gone
under? Alphora's site is cryptic to say the least at the moment.

Rel also looked interesting, and I liked some of the syntax -
especially the fact that for relvar datatypes, A + B is the union of A
and B, and hence A += B is an insert, etc.