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

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:45:43 GMT
Message-ID: <bGhog.3069$>

George wrote:

> 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.

And you proceeded to prove yourself incapable of comprehending written english.

>>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

Your statement was already implied by my description of OO. After all, if all state machines were object instances, one could not construct larger unpredictable state machines from smaller predictable ones.

, there are many other kinds of state machines and the
> terms are far from synonymous.

That, however, does nothing to contradict my description of the inclusion criteria for the computational model.

[multithreaded irrelevancies snipped]

> Marshall do you concede the definition in question is totally
> rediculous or do you wish to defend it further?

Why on earth would he concede that something accurate, true and informative is ridiculous? Do you expect him to lie?

Or are you suggesting it is accurate, true, informative and nevertheless ridiculous? Like a mother's admonition to always wear clean underwear in case one gets incapacitated in a horrible accident and hauled off to the hospital?

Do you concede that my statement accurately describes the foundation and formation of the OO computational model? After all, it was merely a succinct restatement of verifiable historic facts.

   And if you guys
> critique OOP shouldn't you at least first understand it (in terms of a
> reasonable definition)?

I do understand it. I have demonstrated 1) that I understand the

computational model, 2) that I understand the origin of the 
computational model, 3) that I understand the weaknesses of the 
computational model, and 4) that I understand that it is a computational 
model in the first place, which is a lot more than you can legitimately claim for yourself. I not only understand it--I can articulate my understanding with precision and brevity. Received on Tue Jun 27 2006 - 23:45:43 CEST

Original text of this message