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

Keith H Duggar wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>

>>Bob Badour a écrit :

Nope. I just thought that linking to some other sources could help...

>

>>>as a variant of C for exactly the same purpose:
>>>simulation.
>>
>>"The specific tasks that caused me to start designing and
>>implementing C++ (initially called "C with Classes") had
>>to do with distributing operating system facilities across
>>a network."

Thanks, I was looking for this information. You see, what I did was usefull finally !-)

>

>>>and in fact borrowed the features from Simula.
>>
>>"Standard C++ and the design and programming styles it
>>supports owe a debt to the functional languages,
>>especially to ML"

I never said C++ didn't borrow from Simula. You obviously missed the following line, which was :
"""
NB : to be honest :
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#from-Smalltalk """

I just wanted to point out that C++ *also* had some features inspired by functional programming languages - it's not *only* a C/Simula derivative.

(snip)

>

>>>The whole purpose of a simulation is to create a large
>>>unpredictable state machine
>>
>>Possibly. But simulation was not the purpose of Smalltalk
>>(first language labelled as "object-oriented") nor AFAICT
>>of C++

I assume your talking about C++ here. Given your quotation from D&E, it seems quite obvious, yes.

> Though the
> design goals seem to have /evolved/ to encompass more
> general purposes. However, given that, as Stroustrup said,
> his experience with /simulation/ was core it can be argued
> that regardless of his goals, he created a language that is
> designed around simulation (at least the class portion). And
> certainly Bob's original and weaker claim that such features
> are /useful/ for simulation is well supported.

Did I claim the contrary ?

What bother me here is not about OO being born from needs for simulation - FWIW, at least part of Bob's assertion seems perfectly and obviously true:

<quote>
(OO) is a
computational model comprising a collection of features useful for constructing large unpredictable state machines from small predictable state machines
</quote>

The second part is yet a bit more loaded :

<quote>
or otherwise picked arbitrarily in the mid to late 1960's for what seemed expedient at the time.
</quote>

Now if you browse this thread, you find another version of Bob's favourite anthem:

<quote>
OO is just an arbitrary and ad hoc collection of features useful for constructing large unpredictable state machines from small predictable state machines
</quote>

Please notice the "just". Seems we're not into objective facts or rational, well backed arguments no more, but into judgement call. What Bob fails to demonstrate IMHO is this "just" and it's implication, ie "OO has no possible/sensible application outside this domain". Since I also failed to verify this implication by experience so far, I do question this assertion.

> (Note George
> is unable to comprehend words like /an/ and /useful/. He
> ignores them and sees /the/ and /defines/ instead.
> Hopefully you do not have the same problem.)

I'll leave this to your appreciation - please just take into account that I'm not a native english speaker...

-- 
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '_at_'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
p in 'onurb_at_xiludom.gro'.split('@')])"