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 14:09:19 -0700
Message-ID: <1151528959.585451.253790@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>


Bob Badour wrote:

> 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
> >>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.
>
> 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.
>

Now you "don't recall claiming to have defined it", here's what you 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.

You say what you believe OO is and what it is not, that looks like an (informal) definition to me.

You claim "OO" is useful for constructing "large unpredictable state machines from small predictable state machines".

Your idea of programming may revolve around creating *unpredictable* state machines but mine doesn't.

I granted that this may apply to simulations but then not all simulations are written with OOP and not all OOPs are simulations, hence your definition is still absurd.

Bob you are obviously too dishonest and cowardly to admit your stupidity so there is little point in me wasting time with you. Idiot.

[Snip dishonest and stupid retort not relevant to topic] Received on Wed Jun 28 2006 - 16:09:19 CDT

Original text of this message

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