Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me

George wrote:
> Marshall wrote>
> >
> > 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.
>
> You can represent a state machine with VB version 1, [...]

Etc. etc. etc., all of which does not answer my question.

Look of the definition of "state machine" and tell me what aspect of is not met by an object.

> "Unpredictable"? Every object I've instantiated behaves in a completely
> predictable fashion, specifically as defined by its class, there is no
> mystery, no unpredictability.

I take it you've never written a multithreaded program then?

Marshall Received on Tue Jun 27 2006 - 20:50:58 CEST