Re: Clean Object Class Design -- Circle/Ellipse

>> >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.

Don't you think it would prove just a little more productive to demonstrate how his writings fail to demonstrate a proper understanding than to spout unsubstantiated ad hominem and expect us to simply take your word for it?

As I said previously, I read his writings and came to very different conclusions regarding his understanding of OO programming languages.

>I think writings are better indicators than bibliographies.

You haven't given us any specifics of his writings to convince us of anything. Do you expect us to take your ad hominem as the gospel truth on the basis of faith or on the strength of your character?

>Any idiot
>can pump up a bibliography. I have a PhD. I know :-)

I am a little confused. Are you actually claiming to be an idiot who pumps up bibliographies?

>> >> 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.

So you claim, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. Your behaviour, on the other hand...

>> >Because they solved the things he was complaining about.
>>
>> What makes you find their solutions superior?
>
>They're good well-thought.

Not very convincing considering the ridiculous conclusions you drew from Date's writings.

>> >> >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?

Both.

>> >> >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?

I still have difficulty discerning a point in your beatification of Smalltalk and your denigration of Date and C++. It seems quite irrational.

>> >> 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.

How does the introduction of yet another interface simplify it? I am quite aware of the expressibility and power of relations, but you cannot simplify something by adding more features.

>> >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.

Again, I fail to see a problem seeking the above solution. I have always found first-order predicates sufficient, and I do not see how the proposal above even begins to address nesting and closure of the relational algebra. Received on Mon Aug 27 2001 - 04:43:31 CEST