Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me
Date: 27 Jun 2006 11:33:59 -0700
> 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
> You can represent a state machine with VB version 1, a
> UNIX shell script, DOS batch job or rows and tables in a
> relational db - are these examples of OOP?
As I pointed out in another response, this moron cannot comprehend basic language. George ignores important words choosing only to see a subset that offends him. For example, in his response above the idiot failed to comprehend the phrases "it is a" and "useful for" by ignoring the words "a" and "useful".
> "Unpredictable"? Every object I've instantiated behaves in
> a completely predictable fashion, specifically as defined
> by its class, there is no mystery, no unpredictability.
Here the idiot failed to comprehend the phrase "constructing large unpredictable state machines from small predictable state machines". He failed to equate "small predictable state machine" with /object/ and countered by /agreeing/ saying "every object ... behaves in a ... completely predictable fashion". He failed to understand that "large unpredictable state machines" means /programs/.
> Actually I'm not sure how you'd implement unpredictability,
> perhaps you can use reflection then you can invoke methods
> at random?
Here the idiot seems to think you need a buzzword
"reflection" to invoke methods at random. LOL.