Comments on From Java to Java EE (through C# .NET): Why Object-Oriented languages rock?

I can't say I've ever been writing Transact-Sql or...

2009-06-16T17:39:58.106+02:00

I can't say I've ever been writing Transact-Sql or PL/SQL and felt the need to use the Decorator pattern or anything else really OO. My feeling has always been that OO and databases don't mix. The relational model is, I think, too sophisticated to ever being manipulated in an OO way. Look at Microsoft Linq (language-integrated query), for example. It's not OO so much as it is functional and generic, and these are two paradigms that are completely independent of OO. In fact, generics were basically a rebellion against OO.
Of course, I have worked on projects where we claimed to use OO and we also had a database, but there was always a great deal of awkwardness at the seams, and this is one reason I've never really embraced the concept of OO.

I agree. (I feel the same frustration when buildi...

2009-03-26T15:11:53.681+01:00

I agree. (I feel the same frustration when building web pages and trying to code presentation logic via nested tags -- no matter how rich in features the tag library may be. Fortunately, some newer web frameworks let you code your presentation logic in plain old Java. I just wish they were part of the standard tool set.)

I wonder whether Oracle's subset of Java retained the object-oriented capability.

@first anonymous commenterI'm very glad that datab...

2009-03-26T09:32:01.780+01:00

@first anonymous commenter
I'm very glad that databases have a language of sorts, like T-SQL, that allows me to perform some manipulations before retrieving the code. All kinds of complex gathering, sorting and filtering are very inefficient if you first have to retrieve all the data for that.

Of course, premature optimization is the root of all evil. We have written applications that serve thousands of clients a day, that do not use any stored procedures (or any caching for what that matters). However, saying that an RDBMS should not provide 'ifs' and 'fors' is just ignorant.

You've got an excellent point. But I didn't really...

2009-03-26T09:06:23.570+01:00

You've got an excellent point. But I didn't really mean SQL language but the language for stored procedures i.e. writing business logic on top of the underlying data.

As you pointed out (I totally agree with you) this language is meant to gather data. That would be fine but if DB providers allow developers to put business logic directly on DB servers the languages they provide should be better - that was my point.

Just to be clear - I'm generally big anti-fan of stored procedures but anyway I'm open enough to see their usage in some particular cases.

Cheers!

SQL means Structured Query Language, it should nei...

2009-03-26T07:53:44.116+01:00

SQL means Structured Query Language, it should neither have ifs or fors because this language is meant to gather data, process them and then pass this result to a real programming language when something else needs to be done.

But some company never seems to have understand that and I have seen tons of business rules written in SQL that should have been written somewhere else.