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: Bruno Desthuilliers <bdesth.quelquechose_at_free.quelquepart.fr>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:10:40 +0200
Message-ID: <44a2f83e$0$8350$636a55ce@news.free.fr>


Keith H Duggar a écrit :
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>

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

>
>
> If you haven't yet read D&E, please consider it. It really
> is interesting and very well written. Stroustrup is quite a
> writer in my opinion.

There are so many books I should read, and too few time to do so. Since I don't use C++, and don't plan on using it, I guess this will be in another life. But thanks for sharing your opinion on it anyway...

>

>>I never said C++ didn't borrow from Simula. You obviously
>>missed the following line, which was :
>>...
>>Did I claim the contrary ?

>
> Ok, I misunderstood your purpose.

Well, given the context, it may not have been that clear either...

>

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

>
>
> Ok, we agree this seems perfectly true. I also think the
> /unpredictable/ is acute.

In this version of the quote, yes. But while acute, it's not totally innocent, at least in the context. BTW, I must agree that, when he forget to insult peoples, BB show some talents in rethorics !-)
>

>>The second part is yet a bit more loaded :
>>
>>"or otherwise picked arbitrarily in the mid to late 1960's
>>for what seemed expedient at the time."
>>
>>Now if you browse this thread, you find another version of
>>Bob's favourite anthem:
>>
>>"OO is just an arbitrary and ad hoc collection of features
>>useful for constructing large unpredictable state machines
>>from small predictable state machines"
>>
>>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"

>
>
> Ok. At the moment I have to agree that "just an arbitrary
> and ad hoc" is this far unjustified. I don't know anything
> about the origins of Simula nor of those early days of OO.
> So maybe Bob is right;

Maybe he's right, maybe not. And anyway, the origins of OO and the fact that it may be appropriate for a given purpose ("constructing large unpredictable state machines") are not enough to prove it cannot be suitable for other purposes.

> but, yes he hasn't demonstrated the
> "arbitrary and ad hoc" yet.

This can be backed by the lack of mathematical background and/or theoretical formalism[1]. But here again, the choice of the words is nothing but innocent.

[1] and is this that true ?
"The early approach to SIMULA was, as evidenced by the quotation above, based on the notion of a mathematically formulated network concept" http://www.ifi.uio.no/~cim/sim_history.html

Anyone on this ?

> Furthermore, in the case of C++ and it's particular OO
> concepts, I don't think "arbitrary and ad hoc" is justified.
> Stroustrup put a great deal of thought and design into the
> C++ version of OO concepts. As did many other people during
> it's evolution.
>
>

>>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.

>
>
> Hmm ... interesting. We parse the "just" differently. I
> parse it as:
>
> "OO is (just (an arbitrary ...)) useful for ..."
>
> where you seem to parse it as
>
> "OO is (an arbitrary ...) (just (useful for ...))"
>
> I'm not sure which Bob meant.
>

I'm not a native english speaker, so it may impact the way I perceive some nuances here. But here again, BB have expressed it's views on OO in a such a clear way (!) in this and a couple past threads that I don't think my understanding of this sentence is too way off.

>>>(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...

>
> Really?

Sans le moindre doute possible.

> Well you seem to be doing perfectly well to me. Well
> done, with English I mean.

Since I didn't spot any insult in your reply, I assume I passed the "floor IQ requirement" test too ?-) Received on Wed Jun 28 2006 - 20:10:40 CDT

Original text of this message

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