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

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:41:50 GMT
Message-ID: <Oywog.3326$>

George wrote:

> Bob Badour 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, 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 gave you the benefit of doubt and stuck to programming but nothing in
> your definition actually defines the type of programming.

I marvel at your stupidity and your ability to hallucinate definitions where none exist.

  You mainly
> talk about state machines, which of course can be implemented using > "OOP" and many other ways.

The people who invented OO did so as I described. Do you have anything substantive to offer that refutes my observations of well-documented historic facts?

  Your definition is devoid of any useful > differentiation yet you call the other guy an idiot, so what does that > make you?

That makes me able to correctly discern meaning from meaningful english sentences. Very much unlike you.

>>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."

> Can we just stick to "large unpredictable state machines comprised of
> smaller predictable ones".

Sadly, you are too stupid to understand analogy as well. I conclude you are too stupid to understand the historic record even if you bothered to read it. Thus, you are a complete and utter waste of time.

>>>"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.
> What part of "I won't pursue it" is confusing you?

I am not confused. What part of the distinction between "I" and "you" confuses you?

Afterward, perhaps, you could explain how using a relative term for the exact purpose of a relative term is in any way "sloppy".

>>Do you have anything to offer resembling a substantive or relevant
>>rebuttal to my description of the inclusion criteria for features of the
>>OO computational model?

> I have argued using reductio ad absurdum (proof by contradiction), I
> just started with your definition and applied allowed for and
> reasonable absurdities, from there the conclusions are obvious?

Sorry, but no. What you offered as a reply was absurd but that is not the same thing.

> Implementing "large unpredictable state machines" using DOS batch jobs
> may not be what you indended but nothing in your definition disallows
> it, can't you see that?

Whether DOS batch jobs can create state machines is irrelevant to my description of OO and in no way diminishes the accuracy, truth or import of what I wrote.

  And OO programs do not have to be
> unpredictable, can't you see that?

A penguin doesn't have to swim, but that is what it's best at.

> Man I cannot think for you.

I find that statement singularly unsurprising in that you have demonstrated no ability to think for yourself--or at all for that matter.

>>>"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.
> Or you could conclude your definition is stupid.

Having offered no definition, I find your suggestion absurd. Your hallucination of a definition causes me to conclude your inability relates more to stupidity (or perhaps psychosis?) than to ignorance.

>>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.

> Yes but things have moved on and there are other big influences like
> Smalltalk and Minsky's frames and what has any of that to do with your
> definition?

By equating a description with a definition, you prove only your own stupidity. I have conversed with Minsky online--or at least with someone claiming to be Minsky. I thought him a lightweight whose reputation exceeds his contribution, and I note that his contribution has little or nothing to do with the computational model we are discussing.

The Smalltalk computational model is largely the same computational model as Simula's. When people speak of OO, they speak of the features shared among these models more than the differences among them.

>>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 may be valid for simulations but not all simulations need to be
> written using OOP.

Given the absolute absense of any such claim, I find your statement absurd. You clearly lack the intellect necessary to extract meaning from relatively simple english sentences.

  Furthermore not all OO programs are simulations, so > the terms are not synonymous.

Having never stated the words are synonyms and having never used the words synonymously, I find your statement absurd. In any case, your observation in no way refutes that OO is a computational model or the historic facts of the computational model's construction.

  Equating the two is one of your gross
> errors.

Again, having never equated the two, I find your statement absurd.

>>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.

> You haven't used "class" or "template" until now and you haven't
> defined them so I don't know what you mean by them.

That's okay. You have proved yourself unable to extract meaning from reasonably simple english sentences regardless. Any reasonable definition of the terms encompassing the full scope of comp.object would suffice for anyone not quite so stupid as yourself.

>>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.

> Oh the even greater irony of sloppy operators calling other people
> idiots.

Given that you consider "sloppy" the use of a relative term for the exact purpose of a relative term, I am not sure exactly what point you are trying to make.

  I'm not even sure you can see how useless your definition is, > that doesn't make you so bright does it?

Again, having never stated a definition, I find your hallucination of one quite remarkable. Given that Marshall Spight, someone who is clearly quite intelligent, found my description informative satisfies me that I stated something useful.

  And why are you still
> defending it?

A much better question is: Why are you still attacking it? (Quite ineffectually, I might add.) It was nothing more than a verifiable statement of fact.

>>>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?

> The part where you fail to identify yourself as the chief idiot is the
> most amazing part.

I suppose everything amazes an idiot.

> You have wrongly equated OOP with "simulations" making the terms > virtually synonymous, they are not.

Again, I find your hallucinations remarkable, and I note that they account for your stupidity. If you read an english sentence and hallucinate a meaning that simply is not there, you render yourself incapable of learning from english sentences.

  And you have wrongly equated "state
> machine" and "object" again the terms are not synonymous. If you fail > to grasp this I can't help you.

Once again, having never equated them and having never used the terms synonymously, I find your statements absurd. However, object instances are, in fact, a subset of state machines.

Given your clear demonstration that you are too stupid to help yourself, your inability to help others is quite unremarkable.

> Until you demonstrate a mildly valid understanding of OOP your
> critiques of it are worthless. And your insults seem to best apply to
> yourself.

Given your readily apparent stupidity, I remain unaffected by your assessments of 1) my demonstrations, 2) my understanding, 3) my critiques and 4) the application of my insults. Plonk. Received on Wed Jun 28 2006 - 16:41:50 CEST

Original text of this message