Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted

From: Ja Lar <ingen_at_mail.her>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:04:07 +0100
Message-ID: <41c06080$0$203$>

"Costin Cozianu" <>...
> Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> You beyond redemption Alfredo you quip over non-sensical issues. And you
> think a bunch of handwaving by D&D can cover for your fundamental lack of
> knowledge in programming languages and type theory. If all you study is
> Date's book, that's all you'll learn and is not much.
> Of course a value has components. And by the way, in the programming
> language theory there's no "logical level" and "physical level". There's
> simply the syntactic level and semantic level.
> Of course a composite value has "components" at both levels. At the
> syntactic level for every *expression* that is typed as a composite type
> that provide what is called by Robert Constable destructors, a new
> expression is available to "destruct" (aka decompose, aka select one or
> more componets.
> This in OO languages is denoted by
> <expression>.<selector>
> In functional style language 9which also admit composite value the
> decomposition expression is more flexible, something like:
> match <point-type-expression> with
> (x, y) -> x+y
> Which returns the sum of the coordinates of a point. The designers of FPL
> thought it nice to provide a shirthand for several deconstruction of the
> complex value in one fell swoop.
> Now about the semantics, semantics can be done in three diffferent style:
> operational, denotational and axiomatic. I presented you with the
> axiomatic (Hoare style) semantics for the construct called "instance
> variable" that you claimed is undefined. That's a bunch of BS. Coming up
> with the semantics for instance variable is a trivial exercise in any
> style of semantics for undergraduate students.Please note that Benjamin
> Pierce, Cardelli and Abadi, and Kim Bruce wrote those respective books at
> the graduate level, which may have as a consequence that they assumed from
> the reader a working knowledge of basic programming languages theory.
> Any good programming language theory book, will give you all the details
> you need to learn all you need to know about OO languages, including
> what's an object (which is synonim with class instance, also referred as
> object instance), what's a class, and what's a type. You can pick and
> choose from Friedman "Essentials of programming languages" that one has
> very clear chapters about objects and classes,or the somewhat more
> abstract John Reynolds "Theories of programming languages", and you'll get
> a working knowledge of the essential vocabulary and basic results in
> programming language theory and type theory.
> Just handwaving your ignoramus status and making rdiculous claims about
> the work of researchers with a high stature in a peer reviewed
> environement and with *actual results* in terms of compilers, published
> theorems, etc, well, that's hardly justifiable.
> You take liberty to accuse others of their ignorance with regards to
> relational theory, but you have to eat your own food. Go read something
> and come back in a few months to share with us if you still have problems
> with objects, classes and the "values versus variables" story.

Thank you for a succint and needed clarification of the matter(s)! I'm happy to rest the case from my side here. Received on Wed Dec 15 2004 - 17:04:07 CET

Original text of this message