Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:04:05 GMT
> 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, a UNIX shell
> script, DOS batch job or rows and tables in a relational db - are these
> examples of OOP?
Are you trying to make a point? I don't recall redefining OOP as "any device or technology useful for constructing state machines." One can construct state machines with nothing more than inverting amplifiers. Computers, themselves, are nothing more or less than huge state machines.
I will respond to your argument above by analogy: That "a lever is a simple machine useful for amplifying force" in no way diminishes or contradicts the statement that "a ramp is a simple machine useful for amplifying force."
> "Large" is a relative term what does it mean 3 or 3million? Sloppy but
> I won't pursue it.
It has been argued that there are only three useful numbers in computing: zero, one and some arbitrarily large power of two. Others have stated essentially the same point as: zero, one and infinity.
Whatever "large" is, it is larger than zero or one. Given that the purpose of relative terms is to compare things and given that the original statement compared the sizes of two state machines, I find your inability to understand a relative term relating sizes quite remarkable.
> "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?
Given your inability to parse my statement in any accurate or useful manner, I have to conclude you are either totally ignorant of the origins of the OO computational model or you lack the intellect to comprehend written english or both. I am not sure exactly how the source of your inability breaks down, though.
OO was invented for simulation and was first expressed in a language called Simula. Stroustrop later invented C++ as a variant of C for exactly the same purpose: simulation. Stroustrop used the same inclusion criteria when transforming the C computational model into OO and in fact borrowed the features from Simula.
The whole purpose of a simulation is to create a large unpredictable state machine to discover what would happen in various conditions. If the simulations were predictable, there would be no need for them in the first place.
That an individual object class defines a template for a relatively simple predictable state machine agrees entirely with my description of the inclusion criterion for features of the OO computational model. The computational model is, after all, useful for piecing together large unpredictable state machines from small predictable state machines.
Oh the irony, when people using the computational model to piece together predictable state machines with the intent to create larger predictable state machines discover the result is unpredictable after all.
> Yet in this great definition the original recipient is suppose to be
> the idiot? That's just truly amazing isn't it.
I am not sure what part you find amazing. The part where I can identify idiots by their apparent ignorance and profound inability to accurately describe what they vociferously advocate? The part where I can identify idiots by their habit of substituting meaningless buzzwords where one would ordinarily expect to find intelligence and reason? The part where I have a demonstrably better grasp of both OO and written english than the OO proponents I encounter? The part where I am unafraid to give voice to these observations? Received on Tue Jun 27 2006 - 21:04:05 CEST