From: Thomas Gagne on
topmind wrote:
> Thomas Gagne wrote:
>
>> topmind wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Yeah, we are all hung up in this evidence stuff. Cursed our damned
>>> science and logic education. (Cue Supertramp "Logical" song....)
>>>
>>>
>> What kind of logic might you be referring to? You must not be thinking
>> about inductive reasoning because the inductive evidence is
>> overwhelming.
>>
>
> Inductive? You really want to rest your hat on inductive reasoning?
>
Yes. I believe Francis Bacon and formal inductive logic make a
reasonable, satisfactory, and very sturdy hat stand.
> <snip>
>> Only the willfully ignorant can ignore it.
>>
>> As for science, programmers have been suffering science-envy since the
>> 1950s. Just looking at what organizations try to conclude from
>> LOC/programmer-day, debugged lines of code, and measuring the /quality/
>> of code between senior and junior programmers is enough to convince me
>> the best we've come up with is computerology.
>>
>
> Then why are you so insistent that wrapping all SQL is the best course
> of action?
Did I use the word wrapping? I don't think so. I've tried,
deliberately, to talk about separating SQL into its own modules, I've
talked about stored procedures, I've talked about program structure,
I've talked about parameterizing calls, treating them as functions
rather than inlined code, and how modularity wards against spaghetti. I
am not advocating wrapping SQL inside OO. I'm only reporting that
Wirth's ideas for structured programming apply equally well to embedded
SQL as they do Pascal, or C, or PL/1, or Java, or any other language
capable of creating then calling and returning from a subroutine.

You try so hard to be argumentative and to advocate against OO you seem
paranoid against ideas based simply on where they came from. There's a
word for that.

--
Visit <http://blogs.instreamfinancial.com/anything.php>
to read my rants on technology and the finance industry.