Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me

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

From: George <george99may_at_gmail.com>
Date: 28 Jun 2006 14:09:06 -0700
Message-ID: <1151528946.136252.296260@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

Bob Badour wrote:
> 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?
>

There is no hallucination you actually said:-

> 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.

Now we know about finite (predictable) state machines but can you tell us what unpredictable ones are all about and in particular how that constitutes "OO"?

Or do you have no idea just how idiotic your "definition" is?

[Snip remaining bablings] Received on Wed Jun 28 2006 - 16:09:06 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US