Paradigm Pissing Match

"My paradigm can beat up your paradigm"

So far:

...'k then, here's some more:

Too bad we don't have any DataflowProgramming advocates.

Not true, there are some here. Just not a DataFlowVersusTheWorld? page.

Also LogicProgramming is so underrepresented that its proponents seem to team up with functionalists.

Maybe some are or should be rolled into relational. Part of relational is about the specifications of tables, and most of the rest is about constraint-based programming on these tables. There seems some overlap to me. Then again, every paradigm overlaps to some degree probably.

So any discussion of different pardigms is a pissing match? Instead of just calling the people who are engaged in the debate names (albeit in an indirect way), why not try to do something constructive, such as explain the moral high ground?

Perhaps the title should be changed to something more friendly. It might even duplicate existing topis. I'll try to get back to you on this after a search.

I take exception to the claim that ObjectRelationalPsychologicalMismatch is a PissingMatch. It's meant to be a collection of factual evidence to the simple observation that so-called OO "gurus" have hardly any clue what relational is. I don't believe that factual evidence can be compared with PissingMatch, even if the facts are not very pleasing for some people.

I did NOT write this, BTW. While I suspect that OO fans are ignorant of relational techniques, I also consider the possibility that they just think differently than most relational fans. OO (in its current form) looks like a mess to me, but if OO fans can by some maracle navigate that stuff, then who am I to complain as long as they don't force it on everyone else. I cannot say that relational theory is objectively better than OO theory at this point (although it is questionable that there is an OO theory). -Top-

(Jedi wave: These aren't the pages you want to call a "pissing match".)

Perhaps in retrospect, these aren't the pages we want to call a "pissing match". FunctionalIsPoorAtModeling is probably closer.

Since when is asking an honest question pissing?

Since when is stating FunctionalIsPoorAtModeling an honest question? EprimeLanguage and all that

Cause you don't like the question doesn't mean it is not honest.

HowDoiModelInFunctionalParadigm? is an honest question. FunctionalIsPoorAtModeling isn't even a question.

Maybe you should read the contents instead of getting pissy about a stupid title. Since everyone seems to agree it is a stupid title, why not move the page? Done -- now at FunctionalModeling.

Maybe, but you've got to ask why one would bother to read a page called FunctionalIsPoorAtModeling unless you were spoiling for a PissingMatch.

Does this count as the first MetaPissingMatch??

No - i's been done before, and furthermore, this is a rubbish MetaPissingMatch?. I've been in much better MetaPissingMatch?es.

I've been in infinitely better MetaPissingMatch?es than you, sonny Jim.