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

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:49:17 GMT
Message-ID: <xNvog.3294$>

George wrote:

> 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

> 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.

With all due respect, I can believe you actually believe the above statement. You are too stupid and too ignorant to know otherwise. I will leave it to the reader to discriminate.

>>>>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.

I don't recall claiming to have defined it. I described it's origin and construction. Do you see what I mean by your stupidity preventing you from comprehending relatively simple english? You are not smart enough to understand what is actually written so you respond to something entirely different instead.

You then proceed to compare apples and broomhandles. 'Declarative' is not a computational model but a classification of computational models. "Unstructured" and "structured" have become meaningless nonsense for most. Dijkstra himself noted that others had perverted his "austere intellectual discipline" called 'structured programming' into a meaningless buzzword. See below.

If you want to put forward a legitimate and substantive refutal you must do one of the following:

  1. Refute that OO is a computational model
  2. Refute that the computational model was created ad hoc
  3. Demonstrate an inclusion criterion for the features of OO other than to facilitate simulation or for expediency at the time.

Regarding the origin of 'structured' and its evolution:

(Read EWD249 and the much shorter EWD268 in their entirety to learn what the term originally meant.) If one has any skill whatsoever using any computational model, one will recognize that the intellectual discipline of structured programming is orthogonal to the computational model.

"Write a paper promising salvation, make it a 'structured' something or a 'virtual' something, or 'abstract', 'distributed' or 'higher-order' or 'applicative' and you can almost be certain of having started a new cult."

"The second reason is that what society overwhelmingly asks for is snake oil. Of course, the snake oil has the most impressive names —otherwise you would be selling nothing— like "Structured Analysis and Design", "Software Engineering", "Maturity Models", "Management Information Systems", "Integrated Project Support Environments" "Object Orientation" and "Business Process Re-engineering" (the latter three being known as IPSE, OO and BPR, respectively)."

(Martin, pay particularly close attention to the above. As distasteful as you find the hypothesis, better minds than mine have put forward the same hypothesis.)

"The required techniques of effective reasoning are pretty formal, but as long as programming is done by people that don't master them, the software crisis will remain with us and will be considered an incurable disease. And you know what incurable diseases do: they invite the quacks and charlatans in, who in this case take the form of Software Engineering gurus."

"Some of you doubt that aforementioned "techniques of effective reasoning", nice as they are for small programs, will scale up, I quote "given the daunting size and sheer complexity of most programs". Well, they will be powerless if you try to use them to disentangle the horrendous mess produced by a group of incompetent, unorganized programmers. Their power manifests itself in the construction phase where (i) they tend to lead to much shorter texts than would be produced otherwise and (ii) lengths of program derivations tend to grow not much more than linearly with the lengths of the programs derived. Finally the programs thus produced are infinitely better than the usual junk."

"Apparently, IBM did not like the popularity of my text; it stole the term "Structured Programming" and under its auspices Harlan D. Mills trivialized the original concept to the abolishment of the goto statement."

(EWD1308 also has the interesting anecdote giving N. Wirth credit for inventing on of Dijkstra's most famous quotes.)

>>>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.

I don't take pills, and you have failed to demonstrate that the description was inaccurate, untrue or uninformative. I am concluding you are too stupid to.

>>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

> What?

Apparently, you were not, then.

>>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?

I never made any such claim so I find your loaded question absurd. Nevertheless, OO 1) is a computational model, 2) was created in ad hoc fasion, 3) is a collection of features chosen primarily to facilitate the task of creating large unpredictable state machines (simulations) out of small predictable state machines or otherwise for expediency at the time in the late 1960's.

> And not all simulations need be implemented using OOP? Or is that
> stretching your abilities too far?

Again, I never made any such claim so I find your loaded question absurd. (Please note that loaded questions are fallacious on their face.)

> 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?

I reiterate that you are too stupid to understand relatively simple english sentences. Somehow you hallucinate definitions where none exist.

>>   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.

Perhaps. However, that was not my motive, and it is nevertheless entirely accurate and true.

> Your definitions do not concur with any current or historic computer
> science.

Again, I note that you are too stupid to understand relatively simple english sentences. You hallucinate definitions where none exist.

[consequent irrelevancies snipped]

> "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?

The insults are direct consequents of logic and of honest science thus they in no way substitute for them.

Plonk. Received on Wed Jun 28 2006 - 15:49:17 CEST

Original text of this message