Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me
Date: 27 Jun 2006 11:04:56 -0700
> Love Bob or hate him, "OO is a computational model and not
> a paradigm unless by 'paradigm' one means an example of
> a computational model" is an awesome sentence.
> > That's the
> > worst definition of OOP I've ever seen "Large unpredictable state
> > machines", yeah right.
> Okay, so is "yeah right" supposed to be an example of a
> substantive refutation? Why don't you look of the definition
> of "state machine" and tell me what aspect of is not met
> by an object.
The definition was:
> > Bob Badour wrote:
> > > OO is a computational model and not a paradigm unless by 'paradigm' one
> > > means an example of a computational model. Idiot. Further, it is a
> > > computational model comprising a collection of features useful for
> > > constructing large unpredictable state machines from small predictable
> > > state machines or otherwise picked arbitrarily in the mid to late 1960's
> > > for what seemed expedient at the time.
"Unpredictable"? Every object I've instantiated behaves in a completely predictable fashion, specifically as defined by its class, there is no mystery, no unpredictability. Actually I'm not sure how you'd implement unpredictability, perhaps you can use reflection then you can invoke methods at random?
Yet in this great definition the original recipient is suppose to be the idiot? That's just truly amazing isn't it. Received on Tue Jun 27 2006 - 20:04:56 CEST