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

From: George <>
Date: 27 Jun 2006 21:27:35 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Bob Badour wrote:

> 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.

Your logic is garbaled, as is your understanding of computer science which is making it difficult but good news I'm ok with your 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.

Bob you haven't defined object oriented or any other kind of programming, What makes OOP different from "structured", "unstructured" or "declarative" programming? They can all represent state machines.

> , 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?

Accurate, true and informative? Maybe you should stop taking those pills.

> 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.

You talked about Simula and simulations so what?

Can you now realize not all object oriented programs are simulations? And not all simulations need be implemented using OOP? Or is that stretching your abilities too far?

Can you also realize your definition allows for implementations using just about any kind of programming, like DOS batch jobs, all you need is a way to achieve unpredictability (no wait screen of death...) - again are you having trouble here?

> 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.

That's just self-agrandizement.

Your definitions do not concur with any current or historic computer science. Granted OOP is not defined upon one formal definition or formalism but there is concensus on its general meaning. OOP doesn't lack definition, the problem is there are too many definitions. There exist, however, precise definitions and specifications for most OO languages. For example Sun's Java specifications therefore you cannot bemoan any lack of clear specification at least at the language level. At any rate there is much to draw from.

"Large unpredictable state machines comprised of smaller ones" - fantastic.

No wonder you resort to insulting but when will you realize insults are a poor substitute for logic and honest science? Received on Wed Jun 28 2006 - 06:27:35 CEST

Original text of this message