Re: Clean Object Class Design -- Circle/Ellipse

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:M5ci7.339$No1.88686641_at_radon.golden.net...
> >Ok. I was addressing a larger point, though. For him to make comments
> >about OO, he really should know Smalltalk.
>
> His bibliographies lead me to conclude that he does know it. Don't you
 think
> it is just a tad hubristic to assume he doesn't simply because he arrives
 at
> different conclusions from you?

Nope. Because his *writings* show me otherwise. Or more precisely, some of the things he says are wrong about OO are easy to provide.

I think writings are better indicators than bibliographies. Any idiot can pump up a bibliography. I have a PhD. I know :-)

>
> >If *I*, a mere practitioner
> >without a formal computer science background, can read him and conclude
> >"he's complaining about things that are easily solved", then there is a
> >problem.
>
> A problem with whom, though? That's the question.

I'm sure you think that's rhetorical.

>
> >> >"Date just doesn't know Smalltalk and he just hasn't thought about
 pattern
> >> >X, Y, and Z to do what he is proposing".
> >>
> >> That's funny. I read the same things and I think "Date clearly
 understands
> >> programming languages. Just see how brilliantly he sweeps away the
 needless
> >> complexity of patterns X, Y and Z. I wish I had such a programming
 language
> >> without all the arbitrary shortcomings of a language like x where x in
> >> C++, Smalltalk, Java, Eiffel, ADA, VB ... }"
> >
> >Yes, how funny. Just what language do you think we should implement his
> >approach in?
>
> A good, well-thought language.

Deep.

>
> >> Did you ever bother to check Date's references and bibliography to see
> >> whether he might have considered Smalltalk or patterns X, Y and Z ? It
 seems
> >> unfair to Date to immediately assume he did not.
> >
> >Didn't bother. I could tell from his writing. You can't *hide* these
 things,
> >you know.
>
> Have you considered that you are doing nothing more than reinforcing a
> stereotype of british arrogance?

Of course. And I wouldn't have said so if he didn't come off as a quintessential example.

>
> >Because they solved the things he was complaining about.
>
> What makes you find their solutions superior?

They're good well-thought.

>
> >> >I was nodding my head to Date's
> >> >points and thinking: "Yup, can do".
> >>
> >> But at what relative cost?
> >
> >Today it means giving up the relational model and working with OO
 instead.
> >Of course, this is unacceptable to him.
>
> Any well-informed, rational database practitioner would find the idea of
> giving up the relational model for a navigational model just as
> unacceptable. Apparently, you have ignored the fact that we had
 navigational
> models many years ago and gave them up as impractical.

Oh *we* did did we :-? To store data or to actually do something useful?

> >> >And that was sad, because by criticizing
> >> >C++ and thinking its OO (:-), he gets written off by an field that
> >> >could use his help.
> >>
> >> He did not criticize C++, per se. He merely responded to Stroustrup's
 essay
> >> as a widely recognized, respected, published exemplar of the counter
> >> argument. He could just as easily have chosen any other published
 exemplar
> >> of the counter argument based on any other OO language.
> >
> >Sorry, I led you astray. I was not refering to Stroustrup. I was refering
 to
> >Date's railing against OO where it was plain he was railing against
 *crappy*
> >OO languages. Hence my C++ comment.
>
> Since Smalltalk is just as crappy, I have difficulty discerning a point in
> the above.

Have you considered that you are doing nothing more than reinforcing a stereotype of relational arrogance?

>
> >> Date cannot help it if Stroustrup bases his position regarding the
> >> Circle-Ellipse issue on arbitrary limitations of C++.
> >
> >I quite agree, but I have no first-hand knowledge of this issue.
> >
> >Now, someone is going to challenge me on what those things/patterns
> >were. I have a badly filed scrap of paper in which I wrote it down years
> >ago.
> >One was (1) So just add the Collection/Relational interface to the
> >Object class.
>
> That does not do away with the inherent complexity -- it just tacks on
more.

Incorrect. I've done it. The polymorphic benefit is substantial. It is radical though.

>
> >Another was (2) He really needs to know that its possible
> >to program on the class side of the class, e.g., trap every instantiation
> >and maintain Dictionaries of all instances of the class.
>
> Could you elaborate on the above? I fail to see a problem seeking the
 above
> solution.
>

Queries over all instances of a class. Received on Mon Aug 27 2001 - 01:01:52 CEST