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

From: Keith H Duggar <>
Date: 28 Jun 2006 14:00:26 -0700
Message-ID: <>

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

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.

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

  • Keith -- Fraud 6
Received on Wed Jun 28 2006 - 23:00:26 CEST

Original text of this message