Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Clean Object Class Design -- Circle/Ellipse

Re: Clean Object Class Design -- Circle/Ellipse

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net>
Date: 9 Sep 2001 19:27:15 -0700
Message-ID: <cd3b3cf.0109091827.6e0d4c25@posting.google.com>


"Richard MacDonald" <macdonaldrj_at_att.net> wrote in message news:<kyym7.15569$151.1313115_at_bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:cd3b3cf.0109081246.26f3625c_at_posting.google.com...
> > "Richard MacDonald" <macdonaldrj_at_att.net> wrote in message
> news:<fOkm7.15779$KV3.1310956_at_bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> > > news:cd3b3cf.0109052320.3f2f1f09_at_posting.google.com...
> > > > "Richard MacDonald" <macdonaldrj_at_att.net> wrote in message
> news:<r1il7.7908$Uf1.623246_at_bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > > >
> > > > > You're just bashing OO
> > > > > languages.
> > > >
> > > > If that is the prejudice with which you entered and the conclusion
> > > > with which you leave, I can accept that.
> > >
> > > I formed my prejudice while reading your posts.
> > > Is this a dismissal or are you going to address your error.
> >
> > What error? Ever assuming you had any intention of communicating?
> >
> > Declaring class "VALUE" does not make any variable a value.
>
> Meaning what? The above does not address your original error,
> or if it does, its not precise enough for a single interpretation.
>
> You said that all class instances are variables.

Yes, all instances are variables.

> Well, there
> are Smalltalk objects that are values.

Yes, but object values are not instances.

> Does the above mean you still think they're actually variables?

I never confused the two; although, I know Smalltalk does. That was my principal criticism, if you recall.

> Are you trying to say that the Smalltalk Integer instance 5 is
> actually a variable, even though it acts just like (is
> indistinguishable from ) a value?

The integer value 5 is a value. An instance, however, is a variable. It does not act like a value because one can reference it, and unless restricted, one can change it. An instance of type integer, or integer variable if you prefer, can contain the value 5.

Since all values are self-identifying, one can only reference a value by its value.

Of course, that does not make the value 5 an instance. Even if Smalltalk confuses a variable with a value, a variable is not a value.

> If so, that would be a little
> awkward, since value/variable is either/or, as you so adamantly
> claim.

When one understands the concepts of value and variable, one finds nothing awkward about it at all.

> And you've chosen to ignore my question again: What do you call
> the supertype of both Variable and Value?

Do you mean in the fatuous example where you used the names syntactically without regard for any semantics?

While a value has types, the concept of value is not a type, and it has no supertype.

> > If you want to drag shapes, I suggest you simply change the value of a
> > shape variable.
> >
> > You brought your prejudices with you before you ever read one of my
> > posts.
>
> Oh I have lots of prejudices like we all do. I'm just exercising a
> particular set now since your high horse is flimsy and you
> deserve to be taken down a notch.

What you call my high horse is not at all flimsy. You expose much about yourself and your motives in the above statement. You expose, for instance, that you have no interest in learning or in communicating -- instead, you have an interest in attacking and destroying. I find little merit in your goals.

> But I'm genuinely interested
> in the answer

You have already admitted that you have no such interest. You have explicitly stated that you want to "take [me] down a notch". You cannot succeed because my position is well thought, learned, valid and supported by thousands of years of incremental developments in logic.

It is extremely difficult to take down we who sit on the shoulders of giants. You certainly won't succeed by trying to destroy what little meaning remains in the words you use so haphazardly.

Someday, somebody might topple the giants in a single stroke of genius, but such events are exceedingly rare in science and mathematics. While still rare, more frequently another giant climbs on top, and we get to scramble to an even higher perch.

> though becoming less hopeful you'll say anything
> useful.

I don't think you will find anything particularly useful for your stated goal. Better men than you have tried and failed. Received on Sun Sep 09 2001 - 21:27:15 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US