From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 18:58:00 MDT
Michael Wiik wrote:
>
> The database, though built using an rdbms product, was designed by an OO
> programmer. However, no encompassing OO model was built from which
> applications could be designed. It was left as an exercise for each
> programmer to make the OO model from the appropriate portions of the
> database. If the database had been designed around a relational model,
> then this would not be too difficult. A programmer would just map the
> relational design to an OO design. The lack of an encompassing OO model
> essentially means that each programmer has to reverse-engineer the
> relational model from the design and re-shape it to a new OO model for
> his or her application. In addition, the database has since been
> modified by a succession of database administrators (not designers).
> It's 'succession' since eventually the DBA's become insane and have to
> resign.
I took care of the need for object persistence a different way.
I build a general object-relational mapping layer capable of
mapping any OO data model to various relational dbms systesm.
Using it with a particular language only requires mapping that
language to the general OO model, a much smaller task. The OO
programmer never sees the underlying relational infrastructure.
They see what looks like an ODBMS and that as transparently as
possible.
>
> This database is then a 'temporal polluter'. It continually spits out
> turd bits into the future. Visualize this as a long winding path strewn
> with poop. From this I see much application development work as sweeping
> away shit. Some programmers make the design effort to actually cart away
> some of the shit, while others just try and sweep it under the rug. From
> a management perspective, the important thing is that the immediate path
> ahead be shit-free, or at least look shit-free, and that the path is
> sufficiently unfocused to hide the shit further ahead when clients come
> to call.
>
Unfortunately, from the business and management point of view
the prime consideration often seems to not care how many turds
are present but only care about checking tasks off a list
quickly and fielding new features many of which deserve
scatological metaphors from the beginning. The product
development people have to swim in the sewage there is never
time enough to actually clean up.
PD folks add their own varieties of course.
> It then occurs to me that the whole world is on a similar path.
> Trillions of past decisions made w/o consideration of the future past
> the next financial quarter continually spew shit into the future.
>
True.
> I think the singularity will have to deal with this shit, somehow. If
> the singularity ignores the shit, it will hit a wall of built-up shit
> and be stopped. If the singularity takes the time to cart away all the
> shit, it will be slowed considerably. If the singularity is like Liquid
> Plumber and dissolves the shit, we need to keep in mind that some of
> this shit is people.
>
A lot of the shit comes from the inefficiences and inadequacies
of human beings and human institutions imho. Hopefully upgraded
humans and instutitions and especially a SAI would be clear a
lot of this away or at least give us a higher grade of the same. ;)
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:33 MST