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

Marshall wrote:
> 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.
>

I have answered issues you raised in previous posts, you issued a challange to find what was wrong with Bob's "awesome definition", remember you provided a recipe for how to read such cogent posts.

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

Object's may be state machines but state machines are not necessarily (OOP) objects, there are many other kinds of state machines and the terms are far from synonymous.

>
> > "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?
>

Actually I have, and funny enough it was all predictable. I think they call it programming.

>
> Marshall

Marshall do you concede the definition in question is totally rediculous or do you wish to defend it further? And if you guys critique OOP shouldn't you at least first understand it (in terms of a reasonable definition)? Received on Tue Jun 27 2006 - 22:01:50 CEST