Re: The wisdom of the object mentors
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox_at_dmitry-kazakov.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:13:28 +0200
Message-ID: <fcmzo2pjd11v.am7j40hqaznc$.dlg_at_40tude.net>
>
> What on earth is going on with you that you cannot admit
> to a simple truth, that an algorithm must know the data
> structure that it operates on, and must instead try to
> obscure the issue by bringing in lots of irrelevant abstractions.
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:13:28 +0200
Message-ID: <fcmzo2pjd11v.am7j40hqaznc$.dlg_at_40tude.net>
On 27 Jun 2006 08:59:33 -0700, Marshall wrote:
> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On 27 Jun 2006 07:43:22 -0700, Marshall wrote: >> >>> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >>>> On 26 Jun 2006 19:06:43 -0700, Marshall wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bart Wakker wrote: >>>>>> frebe73_at_gmail.com writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A algorithm could must obviously know about the data structure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not at all! I'm currently writing many algorithms that get their data >>>>>> passed in as java objects. The algorithm does not need to know where >>>>>> the data came from and how it is stored in the database. >>>>> >>>>> "Where the data came from" is not the data structure. >>>> >>>> Replace "where the data came from" with "the data structure at the place >>>> they came from." >>> >>> The claim was that it is not the case that an algorithm must know >>> about the data structure it operates on. This claim is bogus on >>> the face of it. Your introduction of the idea of different schemas >>> for different modules does not change how bogus it is. >> >> That depends on how we'd define both, which has a danger to move us into an >> exercise in amateur philosophy. Especially whether we are talking about >> inputs and outputs or internal states (both in some imperative mindset), or >> about ADTs (mixed), or wider about abstract mathematical structures (purely >> declarative). Consider an algorithm of enumeration of any [infinite] set in >> ZF. I don't know what's the data structure there. So, as a behaviorist, I >> don't believe in existence data.
>
> What on earth is going on with you that you cannot admit
> to a simple truth, that an algorithm must know the data
> structure that it operates on, and must instead try to
> obscure the issue by bringing in lots of irrelevant abstractions.
It is not a simple truth, as long as no clear formal framework was presented. Again, I don't know what *you* call data. The list of guesses you find in my previous post.
> I really dislike Bob's snake-oil salesman hypothesis, but
> I have to admit I haven't a single other plausible hypothesis
> that would explain the above.
Bob's hypothesis has the subject (if any) outside CS. Applied misanthropy is not the domain of my interests. At least, not permanently. (:-))
-- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.deReceived on Tue Jun 27 2006 - 20:13:28 CEST