|
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:13:58 -0500, Brad Stone <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:51:49 -0500 > Steve Richter <stephenrichter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:40:02 -0600, Joe Pluta > > In an OO language you would write the > > address book > > object once, then drop it in as a base struct in the > > vendor, customer > > and employee data struct. > > Oh if it were that easy, there's be no argument. :) > > And technically I believe you could do it without OO... > with a nicely structured RDB. I haven't seen one of those > in years though.. LOL.. that is true. the textbook data struct hierarchy that you design in c++ and I guess java does not mix well with the structure of your database. If you want to design good business objects your language has to support all the popular language features. That just proves to me that the IBM argument that what we have is good enough does not fly. Languages have to have a lot of features and building blocks in order to be really useful. -Steve
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.